Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Durwan Aug 23, 2014 13:44:18	So we checked the rules today after the rogue took out a crossbow to shoot and argueed that he should have the dex as damage. We found something in the rules that may support it, but it feels a bitt wrong... I understand adding strength to melee and throwned objects and bows due to the speed. I understand beeing able to use dex in similare matters on finesse weapons. But how can you add dex or strength to a passive weapon like a crossbow in damage...?
#2 Shiroiken Aug 23, 2014 13:57:48	Ranged Weapons add Dex to damage. This represents better aim to hit weaker points. Some think this is wrong, but if you can accept Dex to damage from Finesse, then you should be able to eventually wrap your mind around it for Ranged Weapons.
#3 Captain_Kobold Aug 23, 2014 14:44:10	I'm not sure whether I'd agree about having to use Dex to damage for bows: The stronger the draw, the flatter and faster the arrow will fly, the better it will punch through armour, and the deeper it will penetrate into a body. Personally I'd allow either strength or dex for bows, similar to how you can now use either strength or dex for some melee weapons.   I can understand the reasoning behind adding Dex to damage for crossbows: its a game mechanics balancing issue, similar to why they increased the rate of fire of crossbows.
(Reply to #3) OoftaMeg	Captain_Kobold wrote:
#5 Yunru Aug 23, 2014 15:36:14	You can't shoot for **** unless you have the nimbleness to hold a bow and arrow in just the right way (represented by dex).
#6 Captain_Kobold Aug 23, 2014 16:23:20	Yunru wrote:
#7 alienux Aug 23, 2014 16:32:15	Durwan wrote:
#8 Psikerlord Aug 23, 2014 17:01:34	Makes sense to me that dex adds to crossbow dmg.
#9 mellored Aug 23, 2014 18:11:27	There's always going to be issues when trying to catagorize things.  The world does not fit into boxes.   But yea, Dex for ranged attacks. Unless it's a thrown weapon. Or a spell.
#10 Jbickley00 Aug 23, 2014 20:47:04	Dex affects aim, and therefore it affects to hit and damage on ranged weapons, including crossbows.
#11 UnknownMourner Aug 24, 2014 20:47:41	Composite bows with their Str bonus to damage weren't so long ago.   But yeah, for balance and generall elfy/roguiness
#12 Steeldoom Sep 12, 2014 5:43:21	Jbickley00 wrote:
#13 mellored Sep 12, 2014 5:49:56	Steeldoom wrote:
#14 Yunru Sep 12, 2014 5:55:29	Sounds like a class feature for this edition. Here's hoping.
#15 Arbitrary_Aardvark Sep 12, 2014 13:02:06	I think that for STR to benefit bows and cross-bows, the weapon would have to be built with high-STR in mind. My idea would be that if you have a custom-made bow or cross-bow (for that specific STR bonus), you could add the STR bonus instead of DEX to damage. (It applies to crossbows as well as self-bows because most crossbows are lever-cocked, so being stronger means that the bow can have higher pull.) So a 1st level character with 12 DEX and 16 STR would have a +3 to hit and +3 damage (assuming proficiency).
#16 Timborama Sep 12, 2014 13:03:37	Yunru wrote:
#17 Steeldoom Sep 13, 2014 20:00:24	Arbitrary_Aardvark wrote:
#18 Durwan Sep 14, 2014 1:52:53	I understand the ideas but still feel that its strange. About the dex to hit targets with a steady hand ok Il accept that but the adding of the dex to damage with a passive crossbow just sems off and a bad balancing move. Its basicly like an distance spell and you dont add modifyers to that. With strength you atleast put some force in a throw so its logical. If you said that with a bow you hit with dex and damaged with strength id be ok, and also ok with dex to hit on crossbow. Its the damage on the crossbow thats weird.
#19 Noon Sep 14, 2014 2:05:29	By that argument crossbows should probably get a +3 or +4 bonus to damage, as they are essentially cranked and use a higher damage from the mechanisms strength (rather than the users strength)   Besides, it is the default rules. To skip it, you'll have to tell the player you are skipping the default rule on the matter.
#20 Captain_Kobold Sep 14, 2014 4:16:01	At some point, realism must give way to balance and image. If nothing else, the cranked mechanism of a real heavy crossbow would mean that a character could not take a shot every turn. But players want to have characters that use crossbows and that get to do something every round. They need to add something to the damage because other weapons and some cantrips do and the players with crossbowmen want to be as effective as them. The options are: Flat bonus; which doesn't scale. Proficiency; which scales too much. Stat bonus; which the other weapons use.   Once you decide that you have to add a stat bonus to the crossbow, Dex is the one that would seem to make the most sense. Most of the players who use bows and crossbows generally fall into the "Strength isn't needed for missile weapons" trope as depicted by popular media, and will want to play characters similar to those in that media.   Its much the same as the idea of adding Dex to damage with some melee weapons. It fits a trope (flashy, agile characters without unsightly muscle) that is popular in television, films and comics, and lets players make characters inspired by those characters. (Whether its balanced or not is still being debated, but its probably more balanced than requiring almost all weapons to use Strength.)
#21 Elothan Sep 14, 2014 4:24:52	Try to not think of it as the dex enhancing the damage of the arrow/bolt it self, but as a result of better shot placement.   Think of it as a rifle, the bullet does the same amount of damage by itself wherever you hit (yes, this is a simplification), but what matters is where you actually places the shot for maximum effectiveness. In a combat enviroment, dex would allow you to quicker realign your sight on a more vital area of a goblin or whatnot, thus getting the damage bonus.   And as for lever pulled crossbows, yes, they wvere basicly armor piercing ammunition of the time,shorter than arrows, but packs one hell of a punch at closer range.    Spells on the other hand, often have a rider effect or some other goodie associated with it:   Magic Missile has autohit. Sacred flames damage scales with level. Eldricht Blast also scales damage, etc Thorn Whip allows you to pull a target closer Etc.   A bow or crossbow just do its listed damage.     To add ability mod to damage on spells is a bit unfair to ranged martials. Would be a bit of "Why cant martials have nice things" thinking I feel.   Oh, and casters can pick up and use a crossbow. A martial cant just pick up a spellbook or a holy symbol to cast spells.
#22 arnwolf666 Sep 14, 2014 4:41:47	Gee, I think wisdom should add to damage too, because it helps you notice the weaks spots to aim at, and intelligence also because it allows you to know that what you notice is a weak spot so you can then aim at it.  And how about charisma, you get into your opponents mind by talking **** and make him so angry he gets sloppy and leaves lots of opening, that too should be extra damage.  Poor constitution such a useless ability, can't do damage with constitution.
#23 Durwan Sep 14, 2014 6:11:21	Elothan wrote:
#24 Trance-Zg Sep 14, 2014 6:44:27	While its not unrealistic to add str mod to damage for bows and crossbows there is some balance issues.   if two handed melee attack would get 1 and a half str mod to damage, then adding str mod to damage for bows and crossbows would not be an issue.   but they would have to be made for various strength like in 3.5E.   for bows if you didnt have +3 str mod for +3 str bow you would only deal your str mod as bonus damage with maybe -2 penalty to attack.   while for crossbows you would get full damage of str rating but would have to spend whole action on reloading as you dont have enough muscle power to pull it in a moments notice.
#25 Elothan Sep 14, 2014 7:02:45	@ Durwan, it is an potential explanation BECAUSE DND dont have any form of called shot function. That means you have a greater way of thinking of ways it could make sense. If you look at other systems that have such a feature, it they are often a simulationist  oriented system, witch for me is a nightmare of complex tables that bogs down gameplay.    In the fromer example, this is abstracted into the dex bonus of the attack roll as a general idea. (that you are more dexterious, and thus have an easier time using x-bows to hit, or as you said, you allready have this bonus), as oposed to a called shot, where you take a negative modifier to do more damage than you normaly do, in other systems.   If you are only looking at how things are written, and dont try to think of ways it could be rationalized,  it dont make any sense, but if you are willing to put in a bit of an open mind, things usually work a bit better.   The reason for this is that DND is a more abstract system than the simulationist systems, and thus you are expected to use a bit more of your own imagination to determine how things work.   As an example: A fighter swings his sword. Mechanicly this is simulate, in a turn based system, by an attack roll. Does this mean that the fighter stands still, and only tries to hit his oponent once ? It might, for someone. Others might choose to describe it as a fighter clashing swords with the oponent repeatedly, before managing to get of that one swing that *really*" connects.   Or hitpoints: Hitpoint are not only "Life points", even thou they can be. A  mage taking damage, might symolize the fact that he got ounched in the nose, or that he gets exhausted from dodging stuff, his armor is chafing, or he is getting mentally run down.   All valid explanations at my table, thou the attacks that drops a char to 0hp is mostly a "meat damaging" attack.       And yes, casters are worse when spells are expended, they are much stronger with spells , so you can say that they are a bit more front loaded.  This is balance. The fighter can go "nova" and quickly kill a threat, or command, or displace, or whatever spells do, while a martials i more about doing average damage more consistently. And casters does get cantrips, so unlike the editions I started playing, a caster with no spell slots in 5e is still a part of the fight with a reasonable attack and damage, just not on par with a fighter or rogue. Then again, a fighter cant cast spells that sends a foe flying away, or a might fireball at any point.   There are mecanical balances here, to make sure different char. consepts are viable, and then there are explanations for these mechanical functions. With a bit of imagination, it is not hard to make it work in a satisfying way.   If you were to take the dex away from X-bows, you would nerf classes like the rogue, it  you added caster bonus to mages you would boost casters even more.   I feel that the balance level between these two as it stands now, is about right.   If you want an ranged attack with dmg bonus as a caster, enhance your dex and buy a X-bow, wich is a thing mages often hav done. For the cleric, I feel  that a char with will for spells and strenght for decent weapon attack as well may be suffering a bit from in the dex department, but hell, the other abilities should more than make up for any problems there. I have not tried warlock or Sorc, but I would imagine that they are likewise balanced.
#26 Athinar1 Sep 16, 2014 15:50:11	I would say Dex to Hit and Strength to damage