In order for long bow to be worth a feat, it would have to dominate the short bow pretty much completely.
Completely agree, though at the moment, I think it probably does. I mean who wouldn't take a long bow compared to short bow since the only advantage the short bow has is that it is cheaper?
I guess I can see the logic of long bow needing exotic weapon feat, but in all honesty, I suspect if that were the case that virtually no one would take the long bow. I really think that 95% of the time the longer range doesn't make a difference since most encounters are at much closer range but people do like the greater damage from the long bow. So, you would have to basically justify "is spending a feat for on average 1 more point of damage worth it?"Indeed. The real justification for a feat is some mechanical difference that makes the weapon dominate it's competitors in the martial grouping. That's why single-handed bastard sword wielding takes a feat - the d10 damage with every other significant stat being virtually the same as the long sword would make it the dominant strategy. Requiring it to cost a feat puts it back in balance.
The long bow does not quite dominate the short bow. The trade-offs between the two may not weigh the same in all campaigns, but for the generic game, they're OK. In order for long bow to be worth a feat, it would have to dominate the short bow pretty much completely.
You mean like the Greatbow from Complete Warrior? Seriously, if you want an English Longbow in your game use the Greatbow. It's described as the English Longbow (6ft. tall) and is better in every way then the longbow. And it requires the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat you're all so found of.
You mean like the Greatbow from Complete Warrior? Seriously, if you want an English Longbow in your game use the Greatbow. It's described as the English Longbow (6ft. tall) and is better in every way then the longbow. And it requires the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat you're all so found of.
Peter - Its not that we (or I) am fond of using the Exotic Weapon feat for the long bow, its just that we (or I) feel that the long bow is everything the short bow is, and then some, meaning, there is no real benefit to using the short bow when you can use a long bow. Perhaps you could offer an idea of how or when the short bow would be a better choice (other than because your character is first level and can't afford a long bow)?
You mean like the Greatbow from Complete Warrior? Seriously, if you want an English Longbow in your game use the Greatbow. It's described as the English Longbow (6ft. tall) and is better in every way then the longbow. And it requires the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat you're all so found of.Peter - Its not that we (or I) am fond of using the Exotic Weapon feat for the long bow, its just that we (or I) feel that the long bow is everything the short bow is, and then some, meaning, there is no real benefit to using the short bow when you can use a long bow. Perhaps you could offer an idea of how or when the short bow would be a better choice (other than because your character is first level and can't afford a long bow)?
Obviously you can use the shortbow while mounted. If your campaign involves a large amount of travel on horseback then this can be a rather large advantage.
The largest advantage the longbow has over the short is the greater range. Honestly I've never seen it as that much of an advantage because rarely does combat occur at greater then 60ft. in my experience. If they do it's out in the wide open - where odds are you are mounted.
With regards to the oh so awesome damage disparity. The same argument applies to the Shortsword vs. the Longsword. Honestly I don't view a 1 or 2 point advantage in damage 1/4th of the time as worth a feat.
shortsword vs. longsword vs. bastardsword.... shortbow vs. longbow....
im still not seeing why the bastard sword is worth a feat, while the longbow is not.
The bastard gives an extra 2 damage, the longbow gives an extra 2 damage.
The bastard sword does not give extra range or reach over the longsword, the longbow offers more range over the shortbow.
*personally I think the idea of the bastard sword and dwarven war axe in the game have always been dumb, the longsword can be swung one or two handed, so can the battleaxe, there was no reason for the "uber versions" of both weapons.
I think the difference between long and short bow is mounted.
I think the difference between long and short bow is mounted.
And:
Kneeling and firing from behind a low stone wall or bush (particularly if using the 3.0 version of cover/concealment)
Firing while squeezing through a 4' tall cave... or really in any other space-restricted environment like dense cover
Basically, things a DM is well-advised to take into account but aren't given a lot of coverage in the rules. If a DM is committed to imposing realistic restrictions on environments and things that fit, the long bow comes with its own restrictions. No feat necessary to make the balance.
In the case of the one-handed use of the bastard sword, I can't think of many situations in which a bastard sword could be used two-handed when it couldn't be used one-handed. So to pay for the advantage of adding a shield to it plus its advantages over the long sword, the designers decided to make it cost a feat.
Having it be ossible under a controlled circumstance doesnt make in plausible under regular combat circumstance.
Daiyukus would not have been invented if the longbow was easily used from horseback or kneeling.
I can make a video of me shooting a rifle one handed, doesnt mean it's reasonable to assume this can be done in combat conditions with any regularity.
But the issue remains than he was inspired by a french illustration of what english archers did at a particular battle. Meaning that it was done under battle field conditions and was effective. Maybe with a Daiyukus was a better choice, but a longbow did work.Having it be ossible under a controlled circumstance doesnt make in plausible under regular combat circumstance.
Daiyukus would not have been invented if the longbow was easily used from horseback or kneeling.
I can make a video of me shooting a rifle one handed, doesnt mean it's reasonable to assume this can be done in combat conditions with any regularity.
a still frame rendition of what a frenchman did, does not in fact make it real. Did Egyptians real stand like that all the time, as they are depicted in heiroglyphics on the walls of the pyraminds? Did they really have jackyl headed gods?
Art is Art, the fact remains the shortbow was used as a mounted bow with great effect by mongols and other horsemen at later dates to massive effect.
there is no written proof of the longbowmen firing from horseback, no record of it used in a major battle and because wild bill codys wild west show had annie oakly shooting bottles while hanging upside down from a galloping horse, does not mean this is a standard feature of the yellowboy henry rifle.
Just because some eccentric professor made a video of him doing it doesnt make it fact, nor is it likely he could use it that way for its intended purpose, maximum range.
Horses trained in combat as well as longbows and the archers trained to use them were highly expensive and limited commodities. It is highly unlikely the uber trained longbowmen also had time or resources to train the rare combat capable horse,as well as practice to use the unweildy bow from horse back, at subprime accuracy and range for no real beneift.
considering there are way many more sources, as well as posters that agree on my points than yours, yes.
A french painting is nota fact, but a rendering, is there a line itme saying "longbow" with an arrow pointing toward the bow? It is hardly a technical oraccurate reference, and seeing as I tookmilitary history for 4 years in college, as well as sociology/anthropology and western history for three and specifically studied these very issues/arguements and VMI (virginia military insitute) and disected the value of different weapons and tactics for years, yes I would say my schooling, and time spent studying this and related issues outweigh a youtube-like experiment.
I also study medieval history, the military experience I do not have though.The claim that is being made is that at the Battle of Blanchetaque, during the 100 years war, the English army forced the crossing by using mounted longbow men, the situation was not a stand up battle, rather the forcing of a river crossing, by the army complete with baggage train.
In that situation I find it credible that the need to move fast through the defenders, to gain the far bank, may well have caused the archers to not dismount, using their bows in a none standard way and that when they gained that bank, they dismounted and formed up to cover the rest of the army, this would not have survived as a battlefield tactic, not least given french cavalry supremacy in almost all major battles.
This begs the question should it be possible in game, to which I would answer yes... but it wouldn't in that situation be any better than a short bow, and in fact would be less versatile as you could not fire over your horses head. Given that you could probably not achieve a full draw, you would also be doing shortbow damage and have short bow range.
I do history as well, and I'd agree with Pendagast for the most part. The English might have moved their longbowmen into position using horses (hobilars was IIRC the term for mounted infantry who fought dismounted but used the horse for mobility) but they would almost certainly have dismounted to gain the advantage of their weapons (range and penetrating power). If you look at the professor's video it's easy to notice (as you have) that he can't fully draw the bow. The advantages of the longbow in range and power derive from drawing the bow back to the ear, launching it's "clothyard" (about a meter) shaft with tremendous power. If their archery was a major factor in the Edward's forcing the crossing (as apparently it was) it had to be done from foot. I doubt the French artist was in any good position to note the facts himself. He may have heard that the English archers approached on horseback and extrapolated the "fact" that they attacked mounted from that. It's also possible that the archers remounted when the French were forced back to advance through the ford. Either of these events could have given rise to the painting.
ok well this is my point all along (and what ive been saying).
If you are crawling through a kobold tunnel on your hands and knees, yes you can thrust forward with your longsword at kobolds, but it certainly isnt the norm for the weapon,nor does it use the weapons strengths.
Being able to hang off the side of a horse and use your longbow is better than say, trying to bite the frenchmen, but certainly they couldnt use their longbows as intended. It was an improvisation (which would be a feat in the game) which also caused less than full use of the weapon but as I said is better than no weapon at all.
If an elf archer, were to say have mounted archery as a feat and insane dexterity, a really good ride skill and had invested more than just the assumption that it can be done for free, of course Id let the character shoot the longbow from horseback.
Possible and probable are two different things.
This analysis simply supports the concept that shortbows are for mounted or restricted spacial situations.
a 1st level character (or a goblin say) could fire the shortbow mounted, where as a fanatasy archer would need to ut a little more effort into using the longbow this way without taking some kind of penalty.
I would say, if the 1st level elf, wanted to use his long bow from horseback, Id say he's at a -2 circumstance penalty and he only has the range and damage of the shortbow (due to his lack of ability to pull the string fully)
But once the character has put his energy, skills, and feats toward archery then let the penalties go away.
It just shouldnt be something anyone can do right off.
I think the difference between the shortbow and longbow is why game designers chose to limit the rogue to the shortbow... It wasnt the idea "we want to make sure the rogue doesnt have full range or damage with a bow" but rather "the shortbow is less encumbersome, and is more versatile in close in positioning and different scenarios"
They simply failed to write any speific rules for such, but im sure it was in their minds when they said shortbow only for the rogue.
there comes a point in the game (somewhere around 6-7th level) where the player has invested so much in a certain style of fighting (saw using the longbow) with feats or class features or even a magic weapon, that is it isnt too much of a stretch you let him use it.
Crawling in a dungeon on hands and knees? sorry no long bow, i dont care if your 20th level.
ridng on horse back? sure.
And to think, this could all be taken care of with a single sentence in the longbow description: "You cannot use a longbow when prone or when mounted." Or, for more complexity, "a mounted archer does not receive a strength bonus to damage when using a composite longbow."
weeeell I think the issue is there is a place for the shortbow and its compactnessad usefulness in tight spaces and more varied uses is why the rogue has it as a weapon, and not the longbow. But its not in the description.
However, if you said "you cant' use the long bow mounted" then that takes away from the 7th level ranger mounted on the back of the unicorn with the longbow idea.
Any fantasy archer worth his salt isnt going to use a shortbow!
but your NPC orcs shouldnt be able to use longbows from the back of worgs, for example (unless of course they have mounted archery and weapon focus longbow orsome other specific longbow training beside just the weapon proficency)
However, if you said "you cant' use the long bow mounted" then that takes away from the 7th level ranger mounted on the back of the unicorn with the longbow idea. but your NPC orcs shouldnt be able to use longbows from the back of worgs, for example (unless of course they have mounted archery and weapon focus longbow orsome other specific longbow training beside just the weapon proficency)
Nope, you lost me there: I'm 100% against having different rules for PCs vs. NPCs. If it's a feat that PC rangers can take, then it needs to be available to orc ranger NPCs as well.
However, if you said "you cant' use the long bow mounted" then that takes away from the 7th level ranger mounted on the back of the unicorn with the longbow idea. but your NPC orcs shouldnt be able to use longbows from the back of worgs, for example (unless of course they have mounted archery and weapon focus longbow orsome other specific longbow training beside just the weapon proficency)Nope, you lost me there: I'm 100% against having different rules for PCs vs. NPCs. If it's a feat that PC rangers can take, then it needs to be available to orc ranger NPCs as well.
IF the orc npc ranger was 7th level (and took the archer path and not the two weapon fighting path)and had mounted archery and was all about the long bow...sure he could do it too.
But a 1 HD orc warrior? no feats,no ranger path? NO, he couldnt do it. Not with a long bow.
I wouldn't require the ranger path, imho weapon focus, weapon spec, and mounted combat feats would cover it as well, but thats basically splitting hairs.
well i certainly wouldnt require the ranger class, I wasjust giving and example ofsomeone who has put time,effort and levels into being good with along bow. In a fantasy game, when someone has put that much into one thing like bow,you basically let them do anything thats plausible.
If the want to try to use the bow to launch themsleves over a castle wall? well thats just not reasonable, but seeing as accomplished characters are somewhat superhuman as it is, riding a horse and firing a longbow is hardly a longshot.
Arguably, a fighger with the right feats is a better at being an archer than a ranger anyway.
+4 BAB, weapon focus longbow, and mounted archery would seem enough for me, or say a ranger who has chosen the archery path and mounted archery.
But not a first level elf wizard who by virtue of her race can go twang twang with a longbow, or a 1 HD orc raider.
Why not simply require the Mounted Archery feat to use a longbow while mounted, rather than declaring arbitrary classes and/or BAB and/or weapon focus feats? With the feat, you could use a longbow at normal mounted penalties, or a short bow with reduced penalties.
Another feat, Improved Mounted Archery, might allow longbow use without penalty.
there is no arbitary or random classes or anything.
If the character has put time and effort into the longbow then you let him do it.
If he just picked one up off the battlefield and hasnt shot one in his whole career? No.
1st level, no.
Just some kind of investment into it is fine.
I actaully really hate the whole martial weapon thing where anyone with full bab can use anything martial.
It was another horrible thing 3.x did.
and 1st level wizards with free 'feats' in four martial weapons annoy me to no end.
All im saying is, if THAT character is the bow guy...then Im not going to hassle him on it. (its just fanatsy) But Im not going to allow someone with very little invested in the bow, the same consideration.
there is no arbitary or random classes or anything.
If the character has put time and effort into the longbow then you let him do it. If he just picked one up off the battlefield and hasnt shot one in his whole career? No. 1st level, no. Just some kind of investment into it is fine.
Lacking any rule, and going by "just some kind of investment is fine," means that the requirement is by definition arbitrary -- the DM just decides when the "investment" is enough. That's fine for story-hour, but it lacks a bit when dealing with a rules-heavy game (as 3.X undeniably is). Still, there exists a feat called "mounted archery." It seems logical that, if you want people to be able to fire bows while mounted, that feat would be a logical prerequisite.
By the same token, we have tables of spells per day by level; the rules don't just declare that "some kind of investment" or "some time and effort" is needed for casting a meteor swarm spell. Instead, there are clear-cut class and level requirements. Even something as simple as drawing a weapon is clearly spelled out -- whether it's a move action or a standard action, and what the requirements are for the latter, etc.
there is no arbitary or random classes or anything.
If the character has put time and effort into the longbow then you let him do it. If he just picked one up off the battlefield and hasnt shot one in his whole career? No. 1st level, no. Just some kind of investment into it is fine.Lacking any rule, and going by "just some kind of investment is fine," means that the requirement is by definition arbitrary -- the DM just decides when the "investment" is enough. That's fine for story-hour, but it lacks a bit when dealing with a rules-heavy game (as 3.X undeniably is). Still, there exists a feat called "mounted archery." It seems logical that, if you want people to be able to fire bows while mounted, that feat would be a logical prerequisite.
By the same token, we have tables of spells per day by level; the rules don't just declare that "some kind of investment" or "some time and effort" is needed for casting a meteor swarm spell. Instead, there are clear-cut class and level requirements. Even something as simple as drawing a weapon is clearly spelled out -- whether it's a move action or a standard action, and what the requirements are for the latter, etc.
my point is there are many avenues one can take to put investment into being good at a long bow.
In a fantasy campaign, the hereos are going to want to try non-standard things. Something like riding a wild rhino, while standing on its back and firing a longbow, might be something a ranger might try (although Im not sure why)He might not be a mounted type character, or have ever used mounts. but with wild empathy, and archery chosen as his combat style, i would let him try this stunt, without saying "nope you cant fire the longbow mounted without the mounted archery feat" This is not something I would really let the 1st level ranger do. Id likely have him make a dexterity check and he'd fall off. Of course a 1st level ranger an a wild rhino would be a bad encounter (at least for the ranger)
However if I wanted my NPCS to be mounted and firing longbows, Id likely have them with the mounted archery feat, that would explain their ability to do that.
I guess what im saying is, its all relative to the specific encounter. Having the mounted archery feat, of course would be a no bainer, but it doesn't stamp a big "denied" on someones character sheet that does not have it.
A rogue can cast meteor swarm with the proper use magic device skill check if its in a wand or on a scroll. He doesnt have to be a mage to do it.
A ranger with the archery path (or a fighter specialized in long bow) should have a chance to try it and succeed, if they have spent enough time with the bow in normal circumstances, they should be able to give at shot at the extraordinary.
A 10th level elf sorceror, who had a longbow at first level but hasnt used it since say 5th level, isnt going to get away with the same stunt (however Im sure she has better things to do like cast spells instead of riding rhinos) But the point is the same.
No cool tricks just by virtue of knowing which end of the arrow does the damage.
Of course he can try it; there are rules for firing while mounted (the penalties are pretty steep). I'm not saying it should be impossible without the feat -- only that the penalties should reflect the lack of training.
Firing a short bow while mounted is pretty hard, unless you're trained in mounted archery.
Firing a long bow while mounted should be outrageously hard (but not impossible), unless you're trained in mounted archery.
Of course he can try it; there are rules for firing while mounted (the penalties are pretty steep). I'm not saying it should be impossible without the feat -- only that the penalties should reflect the lack of training.
Firing a short bow while mounted is pretty hard, unless you're trained in mounted archery.
Firing a long bow while mounted should be outrageously hard (but not impossible), unless you're trained in mounted archery.
agreed it should be outrageously hard in fantasy , considering it is neigh impossible in real life. But if I got hit with the real world equal of a fire ball Id be dead too.
Standing on a wild running rhino while firing along bow is so hard hes more likely to shoot himself in the foot, but itd be pretty cool if he pulled it off.
But I prefer more time GMing and less time flipping through manules looking for obscure rules.
I prefer the rules to be more guidelines, than an actual code (trying my best to imitate cpt. barbosa)
I prefer the rules to be more guidelines, than an actual code
I for sure can hear you there. Personally, I'd maybe prefer a slightly more free-flowing, streamlined system. Maybe instead of specific penalties for everything that all have to be looked up in tables, there's always a base -4 nonproficiency penalty, that stacks: so if you're firing a bow (-4 if nonproficient) while riding (-4 for no ride skill) and you have no mounted archery feat (-4), and it's a longbow (not meant for this application, another -4), you'd have a -16 attack penalty. But a person proficient with a short bow (-0), skilled in riding (-0), could fire while mounted (-4) with a mere -4 penalty total. Penalties for anything could be figured in seconds that way, with no tables needed.
I prefer the rules to be more guidelines, than an actual codeI for sure can hear you there. Personally, I'd maybe prefer a slightly more free-flowing, streamlined system. Maybe instead of specific penalties for everything that all have to be looked up in tables, there's always a base -4 nonproficiency penalty, that stacks: so if you're firing a bow (-4 if nonproficient) while riding (-4 for no ride skill) and you have no mounted archery feat (-4), and it's a longbow (not meant for this application, another -4), you'd have a -16 attack penalty. But a person proficient with a short bow (-0), skilled in riding (-0), could fire while mounted (-4) with a mere -4 penalty total. Penalties for anything could be figured in seconds that way, with no tables needed.
thats pretty much how I do it on the fly (ill spend an hour trying to find the right tables.)
I think I picked up this way of doing it from my days playing earthdawn, where everything was on d6 and you had certain numbers you had to meet or beat.
Of course back in the 1e days there were so few rules and no skills so it was always dex check or saving throw related.
(falling off the back of a moving rhino would have been a save vs paralysis) remember those days?
(falling off the back of a moving rhino would have been a save vs paralysis) remember those days?
Oh, man, and if you got hit with a wand of paralyzation, did you save against rod/staff/wand or against paralyzation/poison? Gorgon breathes on you: petrification/polymorph or breath weapons?
(falling off the back of a moving rhino would have been a save vs paralysis) remember those days?Oh, man, and if you got hit with a wand of paralyzation, did you save against rod/staff/wand or against paralyzation/poison?
Rod/staff/wand, why because it came from a device,even though if the same character shot you with one of his OWN spells, it would be paralyzation!
Rod/staff/wand, why because it came from a device,even though if the same character shot you with one of his OWN spells, it would be paralyzation!
And not vs. spell, even though it was a spell.
Having it be ossible under a controlled circumstance doesnt make in plausible under regular combat circumstance.
Daiyukus would not have been invented if the longbow was easily used from horseback or kneeling.
I can make a video of me shooting a rifle one handed, doesnt mean it's reasonable to assume this can be done in combat conditions with any regularity.
And if you did fire it one-handed it would look cool enough to want a picture. Kind of like the mounted longbowman. It happened rarely, looked cool to an artist who then drew it.
Perhaps you could offer an idea of how or when the short bow would be a better choice (other than because your character is first level and can't afford a long bow)?
Not all weapons are created with game-balance in mind. o.0
That is like asking "why carry a matchlock when you could carry a 1911A1?" or a derringer or any other of the scores of pistols inferior to the .45 in terms of firepower, payload, effective range, etc.And since not every bow was created equal as well we have a few broad categories of them including short and long. So really, there is no reason to pick a short bow when the skill/availability is present to also go with longbow. Isn't it a bit obsessive to demand a weapon's balance in relation to other game items?
Rod/staff/wand, why because it came from a device,even though if the same character shot you with one of his OWN spells, it would be paralyzation!And not vs. spell, even though it was a spell.
I'm pretty sure saving versus rods, staves and spells were all one category. Wands were in another category (most generally a lower, easier one to succeed against).
P.S. It was, Wands was the second weakest category or special attacks requiring a save (poison/death ray the only one weaker) and rods, staves and spells were the worst to try and save against (even harder then dragon breath). -D&D Basic box set
Rod/staff/wand, why because it came from a device,even though if the same character shot you with one of his OWN spells, it would be paralyzation!And not vs. spell, even though it was a spell.I'm pretty sure saving versus rods, staves and spells were all one category. Wands were in another category (most generally a lower, easier one to succeed against).
P.S. It was, Wands was the second weakest category or special attacks requiring a save (poison/death ray the only one weaker) and rods, staves and spells were the worst to try and save against (even harder then dragon breath). -D&D Basic box set
It was Rods/Staves/Wands with spells in its own category in 1e AD&D. And RSW were 2nd toughest saves out of 5 for two of the broad classes (Cleric and Fighter) most of the time.
I don't miss the saving throws from 1e/2e.
Rod/staff/wand, why because it came from a device,even though if the same character shot you with one of his OWN spells, it would be paralyzation!And not vs. spell, even though it was a spell.I'm pretty sure saving versus rods, staves and spells were all one category. Wands were in another category (most generally a lower, easier one to succeed against).
P.S. It was, Wands was the second weakest category or special attacks requiring a save (poison/death ray the only one weaker) and rods, staves and spells were the worst to try and save against (even harder then dragon breath). -D&D Basic box set
It was Rods/Staves/Wands with spells in its own category in 1e AD&D. And RSW were 2nd toughest saves out of 5 for two of the broad classes (Cleric and Fighter) most of the time.
I don't miss the saving throws from 1e/2e.
See, that was why I always thought of AD&D as the "weird" version and stuck with (non-A)D&D. LoL =D
P.S. FYI to anyone feeling a tad out of the loop; we're actually everyone correct with the above statements regarding earlier version saves.
People can and have used longbows when mounted. We have to be careful when making these kinds of claims in D&D and be clear that its about game balance and not the real world. Sometimes people think D&D rules represent reality a little too much.
That is not THE longbow. The difference between "longbow" and "shortbow" is no more than 1 foot. Making a largish "shortbow" that only has ~50 lb draw is still not a longbow. I guarantee Mike Loades was not drawing a 140 lb longbow on horseback!
People can and have used longbows when mounted. We have to be careful when making these kinds of claims in D&D and be clear that its about game balance and not the real world. Sometimes people think D&D rules represent reality a little too much.That is not THE longbow. The difference between "longbow" and "shortbow" is no more than 1 foot. Making a largish "shortbow" that only has ~50 lb draw is still not a longbow. I guarantee Mike Loades was not drawing a 140 lb longbow on horseback!
Hence my earlier referral to these things as "toy bows" a 50 lb pull bow would never be used in war or even hunting (unless it was for up land birds or bunnies) any more than 20 grains of black powder would have been used in a kentucky rifle for anything more than teahing your boy how to point and shoot.
50lbs is about what the kitchen garbage sack weighs when I throw it out on the curb.
Longbows were known for peircing plate armor at short range (hence the 200lb pull)
I was thinking about this, and vague memory says there were some strength requirements for certain weapons in 1e.
I think it would make sense to require something like a 12 strength to use things like longbow,greataxe, great club and great sword.
Most wizards wont likely have a 12 str unless it was randomly rolled, and elves by virtue of their race could still use the shortbow, which is fine with me (not really but better than elf wizards with 8 str twanging away with a long bow for more damage than magic missle can muster until 4th level.) and it separates the longbow (enough) as a weapon of skill and strength, reserving it for fighter types and loarger stronger humanoids, but still leaves room for the strength bows in the game.
Medium sized greatbows deal 1d10 damage.