Versimillitude that improves the game: Bows using Strength for + to hit and damage

[GlenSmash!]

The Strength/Dex divide will never make sense from a simulationist perspective. It does however make sense form a Fantasy archetype perspective which is fine.

Still adding Finesse to some ranged weapons won't hurt a thing.

It would also better enable me to play my Longsword/Longbow Aragorn style Ranger. Which is neat.

But I don't mind the 15, 14, 13, 9, 13, 8 Strength based Ranger anyway. Vhuman with Resilient makes him pretty playable. I even like 14, 14, 13, 11, 13, 8 if going Fighter. The extra ASI at 6 helps me catch up.

[Witty Username]

Is getting shot in the leg with a 200lb draw bow more deadly than getting shot in the eye with a 50lb draw bow?

Shot placement (hand eye co-ordination) on a moving target, is far more important than the size and strength of the archer.

I would frame it as a shot in the head of a knight wearing a helmet, a low pound bow, a sharp eye and a steady hand can get him in the eye. and he dies. A high pound bow and a strong arm may punch through the helmet, and he dies.

All those calculations would be INT, not WIS. And even if you do the math, you still need to have the precision and physical coordination to put the arrow where you intend.

Incidentally, using WIS would be if you were using instinct and intuition, rather than calculation. The 3.xe feat Zen Archery reflected this.

I think WIS would also be the one you were using if you were trying to guess how a creature is moving to properly lead the shot, like using insight to open up an opponent for sneak attack.


Edit:I think simulationist argument breaks down a bit when armor effects the to-hit instead of the damage, I would say if you can reason that armor would be less effective then it would effect to hit rolls. But I don't care too much about things making sense as much as viability of a concept.

[AnimusBane]

If you are going this way I'd second Wis to hit making more sense as a bow's ability to hit is very much based on your perception. I'd say if you want to go for real world accuracy it would be less +STG to damage and more a bow with a required strength to wield it that adds a set amount of damage.

At that point though you are kind of dropping the simplicity of 5e.

[qube]

> yeah, but it get less tiring then using a rapier.

Source?

Me. I've actually trained with both.

Yes.

A rapier's blade was unsuitable for cutting blows

You're (hopefully) confusing, cutting with hewing (opposite to slicing). While rapiers are not axes or falchions, and the fighting system prefers distance & trusts, cutting is part of the hisotrical curiculum for when you're too close to easily stab someon. (linky - lesson in cutting with rapiers)

> Which is why your argument fails: if you don't need strength for a rapier, why would you need it for a bastardsword?

You absolutely CAN use STR for a rapier, it's a finesse weapon, after all. In fact, it's the default, due to the baseline RAW for how melee attacks work..

Great. Except, I said:

Which is why your argument fails: if you don't need strength for a rapier, why would you need it for a bastardsword?

Yes, you can use strength, but you don't need it. A STR 8 DEX 20 fighter can wield a rapier par exelence. Yet he'll horribly fail with a weapon, that requires less strength ... which, of course, is nonsense.

A great deal of the are an abstraction meant to give voice to classic tropes of fantasy adventuring. Rapiers are often portrayed in media as elegant weapons that are more about "swish and flourish" than "murder tool"
...
The distinction is, that using STR for a bow is neither an accurate depiction of real-world effects, nor does it resonate with classic fantasy archetypes and tropes, in which archers are usually mobile, agile characters wearing lighter armor (Legolas comes to mind most readily). Which is why YOUR argument fails.

Cool story, but before you claim my argument fails, it's almost like this guy in post 28 agrees with you - considering he said:

it still doesn't resolve the Versimillitude. In effect STR characters usually either go for fullplates, or are barbarians. Neither of which are typical archers.
~~ me, post 28

it's also the guy who said that the dex-for-longswords argument is

under the assumption it's fair to use STR for bows.
~~ me, top of the post you quoted

I already noted this in the thread, that I'm personally absolutely against STR bows, but if ... I repeat If ... you're using strength for bows (for damage), because it's "more realistic" - then, by that same line, it's silly to key of weapons that require less strength then other dex weapons, to strength.

If you're going for realism, the less strength a weapon requires, the better the weaker fighter should be able to wield it.

[Constructman]

Keep in mind that a character using the Array or Point Buy and who put an 8 into Strength can still carry up to 120 lbs of stuff on their person, along being able to effectively push/drag an object up to 240 lbs. They don't turn into a pool noodle just because their Strength dips below 10.

[greenstone]

You could just as easily say "you cannot use a long bow without 12 or 13 Strength" and that takes care of your concern. You still have to hit what you aim at to do effective damage, so leaving the dex hit/dmg is fine.

I like this idea.
It also has the value of making crossbows more used.

[MadBear]

I like this idea.
It also has the value of making crossbows more used.

There are 3 things I like about this change above others.

1. It's simple, and that's what this edition is about. There's also precedent for this in the multiclassing rules.

2. It still means that the archer is primarily dexterous, but you can't just dump strength entirely. So now that player has an interesting decision to make regarding what they'll use.

3. It creates a meaningful place for the crossbow to fit in. (Basically, not strong enough to use a bow, but enough dex to make good use of a ranged weapon.)

[qube]

Keep in mind that a character using the Array or Point Buy and who put an 8 into Strength can still carry up to 120 lbs of stuff on their person, along being able to effectively push/drag an object up to 240 lbs. They don't turn into a pool noodle just because their Strength dips below 10.

To be fair, My initial example was a STR 4 DEX 20 (as we've got a rapier wielding wizard (that Sword coast elfen fighting type) in my current party - but I changed it to be more inclusive.

Though still, while indeed you're not a pool noodle, That's still a 6 point modifier difference. In both attack and damage.
- a 6 point difference in attack, that's about the difference between attacking & attacking blindly
- a 6 point difference in damage, is the difference between greatsword (avr. 7+X) and punch (avr. 1+X)

[diplomancer]

There are 3 things I like about this change above others.

1. It's simple, and that's what this edition is about. There's also precedent for this in the multiclassing rules.

2. It still means that the archer is primarily dexterous, but you can't just dump strength entirely. So now that player has an interesting decision to make regarding what they'll use.

3. It creates a meaningful place for the crossbow to fit in. (Basically, not strong enough to use a bow, but enough dex to make good use of a ranged weapon.)

Though Im sympathetic to the idea of using strength for bows, this, though, is just a nerf to Martials.

Why not require a minimum charisma to cast enchantment spells? A minimum constitution for Evocation spells? A minimum intelligence for illusion spells? There is also some precedent for this in earlier editions (to be a specialist wizard in AD&D 2nd edition you needed a minimum 16 Cha to be an Enchanter,, a minimum 16 Con to be an evoker, and so on).

(Crossbows already are the preferred Rogue weapon, except for elf rogues, and even those might prefer a hand crossbow if they get crossbow expert- actually, with crossbow expert, crossbows already have a meaningful place to fit in, for all archer classes).

[TheUser]

Though Im sympathetic to the idea of using strength for bows, this, though, is just a nerf to Martials.

Why not require a minimum charisma to cast enchantment spells? A minimum constitution for Evocation spells? A minimum intelligence for illusion spells? There is also some precedent for this in earlier editions (to be a specialist wizard in AD&D 2nd edition you needed a minimum 16 Cha to be an Enchanter,, a minimum 16 Con to be an evoker, and so on).

(Crossbows already are the preferred Rogue weapon, except for elf rogues, and even those might prefer a hand crossbow if they get crossbow expert- actually, with crossbow expert, crossbows already have a meaningful place to fit in, for all archer classes).

Yeah. I'm not for minimum bow strength requirements; adds more system glut and further complicates and already complicated system.

That having been said most of the thread hasn't pushed for this either.

The idea that you need a casting stat and another stat for types of spells favors casters with large spell lists and ****s on those with small ones since you are further limitting an already limited pool of choices. Let's not get off track and remain focused.

I digress. Slapping "Finesse" on bows is quick, simple and low on system glut that mirrors the real world; with 20 str rocking a 110lb draw bow is effortless, which steadies the aim and since the draw can be heavier the arrow flies faster meaning it inflicts more damage, is harder to dodge and has a higher chance of bypassing armor; less acuity required.

Switching to 50lbs of draw weight the arrow moves slower and doesn't penetrate as well, dodging is easier too, which makes prediction, aim and accuracy far more important. So here you use dex.

Finesse bows or bust.
Giving Strength characters a healthy ranged option that still doesn't include crossbows (arguably the best weapons for feat-based DPR shenanigans) doesn't break the game it just makes strength PC's more viable.

Also for those who want fantasy Barbarian Archers look no further than the Scorpion King movie or the Mongolian Empire for something more real.

[RedMage125]

Me. I've actually trained with both.

That's anecdotal evidence, which clearly makes it true in some cases. Logically, it has everything to do with which muscle groups the individual wielding the weapon has developed more. I'm just not convinced that it's an absolute, that's all.

You're (hopefully) confusing, cutting with hewing (opposite to slicing). While rapiers are not axes or falchions, and the fighting system prefers distance & trusts, cutting is part of the hisotrical curiculum for when you're too close to easily stab someon. (linky - lesson in cutting with rapiers)

You're (hopefully) confusing cutting with laceration. I can hit someone with an entirely blunt baseball bat and draw blood. Or, if you want a closer parallel, a metal ruler which is not sharp at all. A narrow piece of metal striking someone and producing a tear in flesh that bleeds is not necessarily a "cut". And rapier blades are not well suited for actual cutting, if that is more clear.

I can't follow your link on this device right now, so I will let you know right now that I was unable to check on your citation.

Great. Except, I said:

Which is why your argument fails: if you don't need strength for a rapier, why would you need it for a bastardsword?

Yes, you can use strength, but you don't need it. A STR 8 DEX 20 fighter can wield a rapier par exelence. Yet he'll horribly fail with a weapon, that requires less strength ... which, of course, is nonsense.

Cool story, but before you claim my argument fails, it's almost like this guy in post 28 agrees with you - considering he said:

it still doesn't resolve the Versimillitude. In effect STR characters usually either go for fullplates, or are barbarians. Neither of which are typical archers.
~~ me, post 28

it's also the guy who said that the dex-for-longswords argument is

under the assumption it's fair to use STR for bows.
~~ me, top of the post you quoted

I already noted this in the thread, that I'm personally absolutely against STR bows, but if ... I repeat If ... you're using strength for bows (for damage), because it's "more realistic" - then, by that same line, it's silly to key of weapons that require less strength then other dex weapons, to strength.

If you're going for realism, the less strength a weapon requires, the better the weaker fighter should be able to wield it.

If you're against the principle of STR bows, then why are you arguing with me? I reject the premise of the "if" you mention entirely, and so I am not going to engage in a "devil's advocate" debate where I accept that premise and then try and construct an argument against it.

And technically, the only "more realistic" thing I said would be to follow the 3.xe model, which was that extra damage on a bow shot would be a factor of both the bow itself, AND the STR of the wielder. So "C if and only if A and B", because the draw of a bow is the only thing that increases damage and the draw of the bow (not the actual aiming and firing of the arrow) is the only factor that involves STR. But again, that's just my note on what simulationism would look like, I do not favor it. First and foremost, the RAW are abstractions meant to give mechanical voice to classic fantasy tropes and be streamlined and FUN. To that effect, I say DEX to hit and damage is better.

Even the "Finesse bow" option, to my view, is not a good one. Not if the goal is verisimilitude or simulationism. Using STR to aim a bow doesn't hold water to me.

[deljzc]

I prefer the idea that "to hit" bonuses for bows is based on DEX and damage bonuses for bows based on STR. It's kind of a middle ground. I also like the idea that longbows have a STR 12 restriction to use or similar.

All makes sense to me.

[TheUser]

I prefer the idea that "to hit" bonuses for bows is based on DEX and damage bonuses for bows based on STR. It's kind of a middle ground. I also like the idea that longbows have a STR 12 restriction to use or similar.

All makes sense to me.

Except there are already ranged weapons that use strength to hit off of the same premise as the one I am presenting now..

[diplomancer]

I prefer the idea that "to hit" bonuses for bows is based on DEX and damage bonuses for bows based on STR. It's kind of a middle ground. I also like the idea that longbows have a STR 12 restriction to use or similar.

All makes sense to me.

Why do you hate archers? This is a nerf to all archers with bows and makes crossbow expert almost mandatory.

[qube]

That's anecdotal evidence, which clearly makes it true in some cases. Logically, it has everything to do with which muscle groups the individual wielding the weapon has developed more. I'm just not convinced that it's an absolute, that's all.

Nothing is absolute. There bound to be that one time as well, when to hit depends on strength (which, FYI, would be any time you shoot a slow creature with natural armor, where the AC represents toughness of the skin (like the earth elemental or tarrasue) ).

Bottom line

• From a mathemetical point of view (2lb/1hand vs 3lb/2hands), you're wrong
• From a physical/biological point of view (rapier stances hold their weapon father from their body as range is the name of their game), you're wrong
• And from a real life test (which, sure is anecdotal, but is more then what you got), you're wrong
• But if you have all the wrong muscles for longsword and all the right muscles for rapier? yeah, sure, you're right. THEN rapier fighting is easier.

You're (hopefully) confusing cutting with laceration. I can hit someone with an entirely blunt baseball bat and draw blood. Or, if you want a closer parallel, a metal ruler which is not sharp at all. A narrow piece of metal striking someone and producing a tear in flesh that bleeds is not necessarily a "cut". And rapier blades are not well suited for actual cutting, if that is more clear.

I can only repeat myself

While rapiers are not axes or falchions, and the fighting system prefers distance & trusts, cutting is part of the hisotrical curiculum for when you're too close to easily stab someone.

You want to disagree, cool. Take it up with masters like Ferrara (of who's 5 basic attacks (not even the fancy master strokes, just the starter kit), 2 of them were blows, or Fabris, who talked extensively on types of cuts, and when to trust or cut, or Francesco Alfieri (many of his plays consist of the usage of feinted thrusts which are turned into cuts to the head, arms, and legs)

or Nicoletto Giganti, who said

a gallant man who can thrust, pass, and in addition knows how to counter every sort of pass and feint, but who has difficulty delivering and parrying cuts, should hold himself to know nothing.

Somebody should tell THOSE guys that's "if that is more clear" that cutting with a rapier is like drawing blood with "a metal ruler which is not sharp at all" - they didn't figure it out. They only litterly wrote the book on how to fight with a rapier.

If you're against the principle of STR bows, then why are you arguing with me? I reject the premise of the "if" you mention entirely, and so I am not going to engage in a "devil's advocate" debate where I accept that premise and then try and construct an argument against it.

ORLY? I suggest you go back in read post 46.

Because, that's our first interaction with each other, that's where you start the argument, litterly to this quote

"if you use STR for bows, why shouldn't I be able to use DEX for my bastardsword?"

[MadBear]

Why do you hate archers? This is a nerf to all archers with bows and makes crossbow expert almost mandatory.

1. no I don't hate archers.
2. It's barely a nerf. Requiring a 12 in strength, just means you need slightly higher strength to use an item that should need strength.
3. It doesn't make crossbow expert mandatory at all.

at worst, it means you can't completely dump strength.

[JNAProductions]

1. no I don't hate archers.
2. It's barely a nerf. Requiring a 12 in strength, just means you need slightly higher strength to use an item that should need strength.
3. It doesn't make crossbow expert mandatory at all.

at worst, it means you can't completely dump strength.

They weren't responding to you, they were responding to "Dex to hit and Str to damage".

[diplomancer]

1. no I don't hate archers.
2. It's barely a nerf. Requiring a 12 in strength, just means you need slightly higher strength to use an item that should need strength.
3. It doesn't make crossbow expert mandatory at all.

at worst, it means you can't completely dump strength.

It is not as big of a nerf as requiring DEX to hit and STR to damage (that one makes bow archers unplayable, now the only bow archer is the Hexblade), but it is a nerf.

Would you apply the same principles to casters and say you can't cast enchantment spells without 12 CHA? Or that you cannot craft believable illusions without 12 INT?

What does this actually add to the game?

[Willie the Duck]

That's anecdotal evidence,

Source?

I hope you realized that your audience would notice the many definitive statements you have made about the truth of the matter without source or attribution. If you want to require it of others, it would be reasonable to have done so yourself.

Though Im sympathetic to the idea of using strength for bows, this, though, is just a nerf to Martials.

Why not require a minimum charisma to cast enchantment spells? A minimum constitution for Evocation spells? A minimum intelligence for illusion spells? There is also some precedent for this in earlier editions (to be a specialist wizard in AD&D 2nd edition you needed a minimum 16 Cha to be an Enchanter,, a minimum 16 Con to be an evoker, and so on).

(Crossbows already are the preferred Rogue weapon, except for elf rogues, and even those might prefer a hand crossbow if they get crossbow expert- actually, with crossbow expert, crossbows already have a meaningful place to fit in, for all archer classes).

In a different game, where no one is in competition with spellcasters (and certainly with hexblades), I would enjoy a game where you had AD&D-style fighters who want to have both Strength and Dexterity, and whom might use longbow and greatsword, or the like. It probably would be more like AD&D you only aren't expected to have high stats in everything, and it's fine to have a 15-18 in either Str or Dex, 10-13 in the other, and can still be decent at other stuff, simply because your stats aren't that huge of a contribution to overall success.

As it stands, the suggested change just makes both rapier/Dex fighters and halberd/Str fighters both use bows... which honestly is not a horrible thing. So I'm not really against this one specific house rule. I just am leery of once again putting more and more simulationist requirements upon the fighters again, while still not making the spellcasters jump through the same hoops.

[opaopajr]

Why not require a minimum charisma to cast enchantment spells? A minimum constitution for Evocation spells? A minimum intelligence for illusion spells? There is also some precedent for this in earlier editions (to be a specialist wizard in AD&D 2nd edition you needed a minimum 16 Cha to be an Enchanter,, a minimum 16 Con to be an evoker, and so on).

This is a FANTASTIC IDEA, too! A great way to make those schools or rarer spells more interesting. This should be its own topic, filled with ideas.

[Man_Over_Game]

This is a FANTASTIC IDEA, too! A great way to make those schools or rarer spells more interesting. This should be its own topic, filled with ideas.

There's already a use for those stats in those subclasses, though. An Enchantment Wizard would have a much easier time using the Charm condition if they had a higher Charisma. An Evocation Wizard would have an easier time casting Evocation spells if he wasn't as worried about blowing himself up or having a higher HP pool for Overchannel. An illusionist Wizard needs a higher Intelligence because of the fact that many Illusion spells use a saving throw (highly attribute dependent), as well as Intelligence having a bonus for preparing multiple spells (quantity of spells is more important for utility casters than combat casters).

On a similar topic, though, I did add a Prestige option for Enchantment Wizards using Charisma instead of Intelligence, and Divination Wizards using Wisdom instead of Intelligence. I don't know how I'd feel about Wizards being a MAD class, though.

[RedMage125]

Nothing is absolute. There bound to be that one time as well, when to hit depends on strength (which, FYI, would be any time you shoot a slow creature with natural armor, where the AC represents toughness of the skin (like the earth elemental or tarrasue) ).

Bottom line

• From a mathemetical point of view (2lb/1hand vs 3lb/2hands), you're wrong
• From a physical/biological point of view (rapier stances hold their weapon father from their body as range is the name of their game), you're wrong
• And from a real life test (which, sure is anecdotal, but is more then what you got), you're wrong
• But if you have all the wrong muscles for longsword and all the right muscles for rapier? yeah, sure, you're right. THEN rapier fighting is easier.

I can only repeat myself

While rapiers are not axes or falchions, and the fighting system prefers distance & trusts, cutting is part of the hisotrical curiculum for when you're too close to easily stab someone.

Bottom line

• You said Bastard Sword, so I was going off the 6 lb weight in the 3.5e PHB, not a 5e Longsword. So that's 1 hand with 2 lbs, and 2 hands with 6.
• Stance makes a great deal of sense, and is all about muscle groups. Someone with more forearm strength is going to be able to hold a 2 lb rapier at extension longer than someone with weaker biceps and shoulders can hold that 6 lb sword with arms bent.
• I never actually made the claim that Rapier fighting is "easier". You made a claim, couched as objective fact, that was entirely too dependent on subjective factors of the individual involved. Since this was just specifically in regards to what I perceived as you claiming that broadswords/bastard swords should be using DEX, I simply asked you to support a claim about which is "more tiring" (i.e. more likely to require STR over DEX).

You want to disagree, cool. Take it up with masters like Ferrara (of who's 5 basic attacks (not even the fancy master strokes, just the starter kit), 2 of them were blows, or Fabris, who talked extensively on types of cuts, and when to trust or cut, or Francesco Alfieri (many of his plays consist of the usage of feinted thrusts which are turned into cuts to the head, arms, and legs)

or Nicoletto Giganti, who said

a gallant man who can thrust, pass, and in addition knows how to counter every sort of pass and feint, but who has difficulty delivering and parrying cuts, should hold himself to know nothing.

Somebody should tell THOSE guys that's "if that is more clear" that cutting with a rapier is like drawing blood with "a metal ruler which is not sharp at all" - they didn't figure it out. They only litterly wrote the book on how to fight with a rapier.

I don't expect a 17th century swordsman to be aware of the distinction between. A "cut" and a "laceration". If you look up any modern analysis of a rapier, they will all say that the blade was not well suited to cutting.

ORLY? I suggest you go back in read post 46.

Because, that's our first interaction with each other, that's where you start the argument, litterly to this quote

"if you use STR for bows, why shouldn't I be able to use DEX for my bastardsword?"

I was under the impression that you were genuinely advocating for using DEX for a broadsword/bastard sword, on the basis of the arguments used in regards to a bow. If that was not the case, you very well could have said so, and left off a great deal of snark. I genuinely meant my response to that as in favor if using STR for non-finesse melee weapons. Since that was not what you were actually advocating, you could have clarified once it was apparent that I was taking your sarcasm as sincerity.

Also, a lot of people of the forum use blue text to indicate sarcasm, so I took anything not color formatted as sincere.

Since it appears you have no interest in ACTUALLY proposing silly rules, and we both agree about what the rules should be, why continue this any further?

I hope you realized that your audience would notice the many definitive statements you have made about the truth of the matter without source or attribution. If you want to require it of others, it would be reasonable to have done so yourself.

On which point did you want reference citation or source attribution? Because a great deal of what I said about game rules reference previous edition PHBs, so you could reference those. How modern compound bows with pulleys have a set amount of force with which to propel an arrow? How about Newton's Laws of Physics? The physical properties of the string returning to an "at rest" state is what propels the arrow forward, and only the amount of force acted on the string to draw it completely acts on the arrow when released. Modern bows have stops to prevent the bow from being drawn back further than the intended amount. And, again, simple physics, if you pull an older bow back a greater distance than the arrow's length, it will not remain knocked. Perhaps you mean what I said to qube regarding rapiers? I'll admit before he really wanted to make it a challenge, I was going off my own knowledge of medieval/renaissance weaponry as a hobby, but I did start going to some websites about the matter once it became relevant, which is why I backed off on the point of the build of the blade, as I was not familiar with English rapiers, which were much thinner than the German and Italian ones I am familiar with. But he didn't contest that point, or ask for citation, so I don't know why you would. I can look them up again if you like.

I asked for a source from him because he made what was almost certainly an unsupportable statement with regards to "how tiring" one activity is vis another. Something entirely subjective, and based more off of any number of subjective factors involved with the individual performing both than physical, measurable qualities of the swords in question. And this was done in what -to my perception- was an attempt to argue in favor of bastard swords using DEX to attack as "increased verisimilitude".

[qube]

I don't expect a 17th century swordsman to be aware of the distinction between. A "cut" and a "laceration".

well, there are just so, but SO, many things wrong with that we'll have to dagree to disagree and people can judge for themselves if someone who claims this, has any credibility whatsover concerning rapiers.

Also, least relevant, but IMHO most importantly - respect where respect is due.

I don't expect a 17th century swordsman fencing masters to be aware of the distinction between. A "cut" and a "laceration".
~~ fixing your quote

Also, a lot of people of the forum use blue text to indicate sarcasm, so I took anything not color formatted as sincere.

because it's not sarcasm. It's quite serious. There's a reason I specified "if you use STR for bows" and later clarified it's "under the assumption it's fair to use STR for bows". I have no problem working under premisses I happen not to agree with.

[patchyman]

Omg, so much this.

It's what I always had to harp on in older editions when people complained about "non lawful barbarians" and "lawful monks". It's not that alignment mechanics were the problem, but that the classes themselves were designed to only reflect fairly narrow archetypes. A Crab Clan Bushi who is a Dead Eyes Berserker, and goes into a state of heightened battle awareness in which he hits harder and can take more punishment, but has such tunnel vision that he is more open to attacks? Totally works as a Lawful (and literate) Barbarian, even in 3.5. But the designers only saw the class as "savage tribal warrior who fronts at the mouth when he rages" type, and the mechanics of the class reflect that.

You preach the truth, my friend, about something that has bothered me a long time! I bear scars from alignment battles long past.

[Raxxius]

On the whole D&D fails hard with simulating reality.

Bows and Crossbows require strength, Platemail doesn't make you immobile, two handed weapons are easier for weaker people to use, dual wielding is easier for stronger people. Calculating bow arc for a shot is a combination of dex, strength and wisdom.

finesse shouldn't exist, Dex should provide bonus to hit, perception as well (Wis) strength to damage.

but then fighters end up the MADdest of MAD classes.

[diplomancer]

There's already a use for those stats in those subclasses, though. An Enchantment Wizard would have a much easier time using the Charm condition if they had a higher Charisma. An Evocation Wizard would have an easier time casting Evocation spells if he wasn't as worried about blowing himself up or having a higher HP pool for Overchannel. An illusionist Wizard needs a higher Intelligence because of the fact that many Illusion spells use a saving throw (highly attribute dependent), as well as Intelligence having a bonus for preparing multiple spells (quantity of spells is more important for utility casters than combat casters).

On a similar topic, though, I did add a Prestige option for Enchantment Wizards using Charisma instead of Intelligence, and Divination Wizards using Wisdom instead of Intelligence. I don't know how I'd feel about Wizards being a MAD class, though.

Requiring intelligence for Wizards is not a nerf, obviously, but requiring it for Bards is. Create a 12 requirement for Int to make believable illusions and Bards will have a big problem casting them, especially Valor and Sword Bards, which are already quite MAD. Lore Bards would also suffer, but not so badly.

To create a INT requirement to cast illusions makes as much sense as to create a STR requirement for bows. They are both verisimilitude that worsens the game, by making less character concepts viable. On the other hand, adding finesse to bows makes the STRanger and the STRogue more viable, while giving a slight improvement to STR Fighters, Paladins, and Barbarians , but not enough to make STR Fighters always better than DEX Fighter. It improves the game (i.e, it does not make any character concept too strong, and it allows a few more character concepts).

[Mordaedil]

Making specific archetypes more MAD than SAD is a big nerf even if you don't normally consider it.

[geetika]

Wow great information