"Bows use dex"

Woulldn't it make sense depending on the kind of bow it is?

Short bows would be more for targeting thus using dex while long bows and such use strenght?

Wow, you are very proud of your ignorance.

>Want to be great archer
>Constantly hear Veeky Forums talk about how it's all about upper body strength
>Hit the gym and start lifting like a madman
>Finally, after years of lifting, be ready
>Pick up bow, draw with all my might
>Snaps in half
>Pick up another one, release earlier
>Arrow flies off wherever
>Can't bow
>Don't fit through doors anymore
DON'T BELIEVE THEIR LIES

>Calling a guy with actual experience ignorant.
>Haha that'll show him!
I've used both longbow, short bow, crossbows, and modern compo bows.
Only composite bows need any Strength. Crossbows might kinda, but not a low.
A standard longbow or short bow will require nothing past a child's Strength.

t. Punchomancer

>No strength at all

10/10 bait. Very impressive.

So dexterity is just... Skill? Should it even be a characteristc then?

>nothing past a child's Strength
"The original draw forces of examples from the Mary Rose are estimated by Robert Hardy at 150–160 lbf (670–710 N) at a 30-inch (76.2 cm) draw length" -Wikipedia page of English Longbow
You must know some really strong children.

>So dexterity is just... Skill?

>You don't need any strength to pull a longbow back.
The English longbow had draw weights upwards of 100 pounds, and longbowmen had skeletal deformities associated with their archery. That's hardly nothing.

Balance

If it was tied to Strength then suddenly the guy best at melee is also the best at ranged and thats OP

>L5R is the only true TTRPG

It's literally not OP by any measure.

Sorry to break it to you but warbow equivalent bows have such draw weights they need more than your average Joe's banana biceps to draw. Sure, a 70 pound bow *can* be drawn by an untrained nobody, but see if he can hit a broad side of a barn with it or shoot five arrows within two minutes.

They also spent a century engineering in the wrong direction, creating bows of greater and greater draw strength that didn't actually increase the damage or range. Eventually they finally figured out they needed to make the arrows heavier and could do a better job with a normal bow.

Only what kind of bow you're able to effectively use and their range depends on strength.

Aiming at and hitting things, especially "things" trying to avoid getting hit, is more of a task for dexterity, vision, spatial sense and reflexes.

I think it's less that it's OP; any character competent in melee is also competent in ranged and vice-versa would be nice, but not game-breaking compared to stuff casters pull. I think it's really more about distinguishing different types of characters. They wanted the legolas character to be mechanically different from the gimli character in how they approached weapons. Gimli is a Fighter and thus proficient with bows, and he's awfully strong, but he's worse with the bow than Legolas is. Using two different stats for the two fighting styles helps make this divide clear. None of that is to say this is an accurate depiction of how weapon proficiency actually shakes out in real life, just that it's a quick-and-dirty way of differentiating a pair of common character archetypes.

They should be sorted by draw weight categories with a minimum strength to use effectively.

Meanwhile Aragorn just both without thinking.

It's a derivative assumption tied from early d&d and unfortunately it is the default rule for the majority of rpgs. Other games use a more mixed approach on the matter: E.g. gurps uses mainly dex (both for range and melee) but each weapon has a strenght requirement; in BRP every weapons has requirements in both str and dex. Wfrp escape the argument by using a dedicate attribute for ranged attacks.

We also see Legolas dual-wielding blades and one-shotting orcs as easily as Gimli can in melee. This in turn leads to "Well he must use his greater finesse to land killing blows!" into Weapon Finesse, making Dex further encroach on Str's turf.

You have never even talk to a human being who has used a longbow

>brute strength is the only way to use a melee weapon

Or just don't, because it's a game and games abstract stuff to facillitate fun.
Autismically modelling certain aspects of reality rarely is fun. And autism is the right word here, because you are hyperfocusing on certain aspects while ignoring others. Are you going to model fatigue from fighting and weapon wear as well? How about the intricate and varied effects of weather? Wind?

>inb4 why don't you just abstract everything away then?
It's about a happy compromise, faggot

>Autismically modelling certain aspects of reality rarely is fun.
Welcome to GURPS.

LotR elves are swole as fuck, though.

No, that would be Cha

I like the idea of having different types of bow that favor different stats.
>Typical bow requires strength to pull and some skill in aiming.
>Some sort of mechanical bow requires a lot less strength to pull but a lot more skill in aiming and proper use.
>Magical bow requires no strength whatsoever to pull but requires a deep understanding of magic to be able to use effectively.
>Magical bow that requires no strength or skill but the wielder needs to have complete faith that it can be pulled and that the arrow will hit the target.
>Big fucking bow that requires and absolute fuckton of strength to pull and is so powerful you barely need to aim.
Keep in mind though that I'm considering this more for video games than table top RPGs. It's just that the concept of all these different types and unique takes on bows that are possible excites me. I like to see unique ways of applying abstract stats because it introduces strange potential builds that you wouldn't normally consider.

I never said or even implied that. Simply that the line of reasoning used to justify the categories made for str and dex in D&D leads to one of these stats inevitably encompassing a far greater number of traits. In general, I don't think that str should be used for weapon-accuracy at all, unless you're overpowering your opponent's defense with a special ability or something. If that's the case though, Str needs to be given some other nice things to compensate.

This 100%

Your longbow experience was probably with a 16 pounder. Those are easy peasy to draw. Upgrade to a 60 or above.

Honestly, medium/heavy armor should have had a strength requirement instead of a movespeed penalty.

Because D&D did it that way, and D&D did it that way because they have a pathological fear of having any class able to do more than one thing well.

The average human (10 STR) can draw a bowstring. Once you can draw it, everything is practice (proficiency) and aiming (dexterity).

GURPS isnt even that realistic

>The average human (10 STR) can draw a bowstring.
This is kind of like saying: "the average human (10 STR) can lift a weight." What weight? How heavy is it?

All other factors being the same, the heavier the draw weight of a bow, the more force the arrow will carry, and the more damage you will do with it. If you're enormously strong (18 Str) and carrying a bow that an average man (10 Str) can easily and efficiently use, you're effectively hobbling yourself.

So get a composite bow with the rules to add STR to damage.

Ah yeah, having more than two bows in a gear section with strength requirements that increase alongside range and damage is literally autism. Not even Veeky Forums autism, that's literally an entire chapter of the DSMV.

What if Dexterity encompasses eye-hand coordination (as it should since it's also used for lock-picking, etc.)? Also, stop watching Matt Easton, Shadiversity et al.

It is generalized eye-hand coordination, instead of only eye-hand coordination wrt to archery or lock-picking, etc. specifically.

There's nothung autistic about applying a min strength and strength modifiers to bows. It adds little complexity for the benefit of increased realism and variety. Very well worth the price.

As an aside, why do rules-lite faggots have to screech 'le autism' everytime mechanics call for more than adding 1 and 1? Are they literal brainlets?

>A standard longbow will require nothing past a child's Strength.
Bait.

GURPS: Aiming and firing a bow is based on your Bow skill, based on DX, but damage is based on the ST requirement for the bow. If you aren't strong enough for the bow you take a penalty to hit equal to the difference.

A strong person can use a more powerful bow, an archer with less strength might be able to match the damage if they can hit the vitals or a less armored area.

>Are they literal brainlets?
It's a combination of low/mediocre brainpower and general laziness. Remember that nu/tg/ is full of the kinds of millenial normalfags who think Cards Against Humanity is fun and really only want a gentle beer n pretzels power fantasy out of their RPGs.

>I've used both longbow
Boy scout plastic bows don't count. What was the draw weight?

Drawing the bow is all about upper body strength. AIMING the bow requires manual dexterity and hand-eye-coordination.

And hey, whaddya know, most RPGs use DEX when a character is trying to hit something with the bow. Even DEX damage bonuses make sense, having high STR would never change the hurt a bow can inflict - it might be required to draw a bow, but it won't change the draw strength or the ability to store potential energy of a bow. DEX damage bonus represent a better chance of hitting more vulnerable areas of the body.

So basically RPGs do it right, you're just masturbating over realism in a way that is entirely unnecessary.

Play WFRP, where the strength of ranged weapons is based on the weapon and being more agile does nothing. In real life if you're able to pull the drawstring on a longbow, an arrow from it is only going too fly with so much force.

>Play WFRP
Or don't, because it's a shallow, boring system.

Simple and elegant and I don't even like GURPS much.

t. Daniel Fox

Because you need to aim it.

Lol you don't even know what a composite bow means.

>Daniel Fox is a footballer who plays as a defender for Nottingham Forest.
What did he mean by this?

Bows use both. DEX determines your accuracy. You add your STR modifier to your damage bonus.

Crossbows are the ones that only use DEX. Which makes sense, because your muscles don't have anything to do with how strong a crossbow is.

Are you the same guy who always makes threads about clerics using wisdom as their primary stat, or are you the guy who always makes threads about women using boobplate?

lurk moar, newfag

>You add your STR modifier to your damage bonus
You can't put more strength into a bow.

Drawstring, dumbass.

You can't put more strength into a bow string.

the amount of energy an arrow has is determined by the amount of force applied by the string
the amount of force applied by the string is determined by how far back you can pull it
how far you can pull a string on a bow is literally determined by your strength
there is even a feat for it. it's called "bow strength"

You have no idea how bows work.

Here is a tip for you: maximum draw length.

Kill yourself.

subtlety is key

In real life bows would be 1/4th dex (for aim and skill / posture) and 3/4ths strength

But any weapon requires skill so bows would be a pure strength weapon

Bows should use dexterity to hit.
What doesn't make any sense is Strength giving to hit bonuses.

In my oppinion they come from the wrong assumption that bows are handguns.

You dont need strength to effectively fire a handgun (well yes but not much), while you need good skill to aim properly.

Bows in fantasyland are wrongly considered handguns, hence why the physically weak but "skilled" characters have them.

In reality bows are a pure strength weapon, and only the strongest of characters should be able to handle the strongest of bows.

Funny because it's mostly the faggot effeminate elves that carry bows instead of the brutish orcs.

I mean, i think its perfectly fine. I don't mind how it is now, but the fact that you can roll higher gold and buy a long bow and its just better than the short bow is kinda dumb. The minimum strength requirement to get a proficiency bonus seems completely reasonable. The same could be said for melee weapons and a minimum dexterity requirement.
>I don't think that str should be used for weapon-accuracy at all
I don't think roll to hit is entirely accuracy based in universe. Because non-agile creatures with high AC are abundant. AC is simply whether or not you deal damage, Missing is a way to not deal damage, but so is being a pansy ass who can't put any weight behind his blade.

>What doesn't make any sense is Strength giving to hit bonuses.

I don't think it does, at least not in D&D. Dex determines to hit, and Strength is just a damage bonus.

>In reality bows are a pure strength weapon
Yoau don't aim with STR.

And you dont land blows from a hand weapon without dex either.

Bows are pure strength if we are to ignore that hand weapons also require dex

>Bows are pure strength if we are to ignore that hand weapons also require dex
It would make more sense for every weapon to use dex to hit.

We want nimble and agile characters with bows and not hulking giants. We want Conans wielding big-ass swords and axes instead. Deal with it.

Dex to hit but strength to use

But nimble and agile characters can't pull 120 the pounds of a longbow or short recurve bow, it's the Conans that can do it.

they can in the world of imagination

>If you aren't strong enough for the bow you take a penalty to hit equal to the difference.
Oh god.
>be 13 at the time
>have 2 bows in the house
>want to do archery in the backyard
>brother won't let me use his 30lb draw bow
>get pissy at him
>say fine and grab my dad's bow from the attic
>50lb draw
>give myself a hernia pulling it back cause i was a weakling (still am)
>shaking all over the place
>first shot goes a full 10 feet above the target and continues into the woods
>second buries itself in the grass
>third finally hits
>end up losing 4/5 of the wooden arrows we had at this point
>realize later that we werent supposed to use wooden arrows with this bow
>one of the arrows probably went about 300 feet into the woods and was never found

I am sick of this "world made of magic" excuse. Stop using it. By the that logic, my level 1 commoner can pogo-stick to the moon, because fuck any sort of logic, right? It's a world literally MADE of magic, and because dragons exist that means we can do whatever the fuck we want.

Kill yourself.

Conan was nimble and agile as well, also you guys tend to vastly exaggerate how strong you need to be to draw a bow.

it's just an intentionally simple system to model common character archetypes in fantasy, it's not intended to satisfy your autism (which is not possible of course)

I suppose you don't like Star Wars or the adventures of Indiana Jones either? Fair enough but you'll have to face the fact that most people enjoy seeking out unrealistic dream worlds for escapism.

>I don't think roll to hit is entirely accuracy based in universe
I could definitely understand this point of view; also makes sense with armor providing an AC bonus. If that was the case, however, why are we rolling for damage? Wouldn't the to-hit roll be a measure of both accuracy and how well the hit connected, and just use margin of success or something?

Unless it's the first time you pull a bow the strength component is insignificant... normal bows are meant to be pulled without trembling and sweating.

Stop thinking about game stats as real world requirements, yes, bows require plenty of strength, but likewise most melee weapons in reality require plenty of dexterity as well as there's a lot more that goes into swinging a sword than "just swing it really hard bro."

If we were worried about realism in games every single build would look about the same.

Oh hey a false comparison that has nothing to do with the subject at hand, nice. You know what I do hate? When I can see the arrows barely wobble out of the stunt bows they're loosed from in movies, or that scene where the archer just fucking holds an arrow at full draw while talking to someone for 5 minutes.

It's not about realism, it's about the game's abstraction being arbitrary and shit.

In GURPS, Dexterity represents general motor functions and hand-eye coordination and whatnot. It is the stat used to determine all physical skills, with IQ being what determines all mental skills (there's some use of Will and Perception, too).

It helps you AIM the bow. Strength, on the other hand, determines how much you can carry and lift, and how much damage you do. By proxy, the higher the strength, the higher the damage output because you're able to pull bigger bows.

Generous GMs will probably allow their player to make a Per-based or ST-based Bow skill check before the final skill check to hit to represent someone with high perception being better at aiming, and someone with high strength not having to deal with the bow's weight that much when drawn. A success against either will gain +1 to the final effective skill of the final roll.

You need a baseline level of strength to operate the bow, but you need excellent hand-coordination to aim the bow well and hit targets consistently. I kind of like how Dark Souls did weapon contributing stats, assigning letter ranks to certain weapons. For example a rapier would be dex A but strength D. Meaning strength applies to your overall effectiveness but not as much as dex.

then why do you aim swords with strength?

Because aiming with weapons is about penetrating the oponent defense, not just hitting them.

Ranged weapons attack bonus come from shooting more accurate on the target or hitting somewhere without armor. Melee weapons however consider that you will probably hit your target, so it's more about penetrating his armor.

Armor Class represents not just by armor but natural dodge.