Characters with 8 strength are just as good at using longbows as characters with 16 strength

>characters with 8 strength are just as good at using longbows as characters with 16 strength

why do the 5e designers think that dexterity makes you stronger? is it feminism?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=DSTvLAhLpgQ
physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/jn.00117.2004
twitter.com/AnonBabble

It's just retarded design where they built each class around a single god stat, and the dart they threw to pick the stat for ranged combat classes landed on DEX.

>realism
>D&D

then house rule longbows to have a strength requirement, jesus christ who the fuck cares

A lot of gamers and game designers buy into the bizarre meme that bows are agility weaponsthat don't require any strength but instead need you go go fast I guess?

>is it feminism?

it's kind of a moot point since crossbows are so much better anyway

-4 STR detected

does 13 STR sound reasonable? I think I'd kick the damage up to a d10 as well

>why do the 5e designers think that dexterity makes you stronger?
You're understanding it wrong: Bows are Dex-based because Dexterity is the stat associated with Precision and Accuracy

Once you have enough Strength to draw the bow, you don't need more Strength but you do need more Dexterity to hit more accurately your targets

Thats why I use a gun, user.

>dexterity
>not having a minimum strength requirement and using Wisdom to predict movement of targets
>implying manual dexterity is more important than knowing how to aim

Because 4e decided that ranged/finesse characters should get to use Dex for everything. 5e decided to keep that.

I miss the AD&D days where melee was always strength, to hit ranged was dex, and ranged damage was based on the kind of missile that was fired.

You do need strength on a bow to get the arrow through the armor, though.
If only there was some way to reflect this fact.
Oh, there is, and it's called "not playing D&D

>You do need strength on a bow to get the arrow through the armor, though.
That's what the string on the bow is for

Hopping onboard this thread to say that it's equally -stupid that non-wiz casters can dump Intelligence. Just completely not need it.

I'm not saying brainlets shouldn't be able to use magic but they should be noticeablely worse than the warlock who's charismatic *and* has a great deal of knowledge about the occult

People still play D&D?

Why not just make a Great bow then?
Make it require strength of 13-14, make it a d10 of damage.

13 Strength is on par with Zombie, but more than your average bandit (11 STR.) So your average bandit wont be using a longbow anytime soon. Hell, even the Archer statblock has them listed as 11 Str, so an Archer wont be using a longbow either without just increasing that stats to 13 each instead of 11.

if you have below-average to average human strength then you don't have enough to draw the string. Actual longbows have draw weights as high as 100lbs, and your back muscles have to do a unusually large amount of that work

Yes, have you been living under a rock?

warlocks should be INT casters anyway. for other casters it's a moot point.

>Not playing a Hexblade
>Not using the sheer force of your personality to wreck your foes in close combat
>Thinking "dodge" and "accurate strike" can trump stage presence and the power of friendship

This is why you're the villain and I'm the hero.

this is actually a great idea

youtube.com/watch?v=DSTvLAhLpgQ
and drawing that requires... dexterity?

>sell your soul for a cantrip
>int caster

>tfw when Neanderthal westerners think they're manly because muh longbow

laminated recurve bows are better anyway

That's exactly what I said in my first post
>Once you have enough Strength to draw the bow

no one said they needed high WIS

An adventurer proficient with a longbow is assumed to be strong enough to handle the pull. This is because adventurers are exceptional, not the norm.

This should be obvious in a game about a band of weirdoes going from town to city and tomb to crypt to look for lost wealth instead of joining the town guard for that sick pension.

warlocks don't have to literally sell their soul by RAW

Read my first post before talking
>Once you have enough Strength to draw the bow,

But that's exactly how it works in real life. You have to be strong enough to draw the bow in the first place but after that it doesn't matter, because the bow is the thing shooting the arrow, not you. You can't draw it "stronger."

>implying
you need more perception or whatever, dexterity is fucking useless to aiming a bow
i guess it's important to keep firm control of the bow and avoid shaking but once again strength is more important for that than dex

a lot of systems that have the stats use perception or composure for aiming ranged attacks.

why doesn't heavy-armor proficiency do the same for non-dwarves?

why doesn't heavy-weapons proficiency do the same for halflings and gnomes?

What's really stupid is that 5e decided not one, but three charisma casters were necessary, four if you count paladin.

Perception is there to see your target
Dexterity is there for the hand-eye coordination

welcome to imageboards, there is inference to be drawn as to which posts might belong to the same poster, but nobody here is psychic.

I'd like to believe the other user was just remarking that you need to make a pact of some kind instead of requiring intense study.

Isn't that why Wizards think Warlocks are both insane and incredibly lazy?

tbf it makes a lot of sense for paladin and bard

sorcerers, sure, given the way they're fluffed, but the way they're fluffed is stupid

warlocks it's just embarrassing; CHA should matter for them but it's not how they cast spells

>nobody here is psychic
But you should know how to read

Because.

Absolutely.
I feel like warlock should just be a branch of sorcerer, seeing as they have only two different options; wild magic and dragonblooded, both of which are retarded.

That doesn't make any sense considering they're not assumed to be strong enough to do anything else.

It's because they assume that bows are equally effective regardless of pull.

Having multiple casters of the same ability isn't bad if you have more casters of the other abilities.
WotC fucked up by having only one Int based class, two Wis based, and four fucking Charisma based ones.

Spreading out new classes into Int and Wis would rectify that problem, even if Warlocks being Charisma makes very little sense.

not the user you replied to, but question - why don't warlocks use wisdom, same as clerics? they both make agreements with, and usually give their souls to, some nebulous entity in exchange for power. warlocks are basically just clerics who understand their agreements a bit better than clerics do.

I'd think some Warlocks just picked up the arcane equivalent of those cheap martial arts pamphlets, like the one you see in Kung Fu Hustle, instead of going to a dojo/academy and learning *why* the magic works.

They can do weird shit, but God help you if you try to get them to do anything technical.

but that's retarded, like even more retarded than Mearls' other mistakes

You're confusing it with motor skill/motor control.
Perception is in fact the most important factor for hand-eye coordination.

it's hard to fix the problem now that warlocks and sorcerers are CHA now

what other kind of INT-based character can you make that isn't just a spicy wizard?

>hand-eye coordination is useless for aiming a bow
No, user, I don't think that's the case.

There's an old saying about "Practice makes perfect" that comes to mind.

There's also a quote about "Fear the man that has practiced the same kick a thousand times" that Bruce Lee liked to trot out, which also comes to mind.

That makes no kind of sense.

But you can get heavier bows with stronger pulls that objectively launch their arrow with more force and velocity.

>Isn't that why Wizards think Warlocks are both insane and incredibly lazy?

No, just insane. All the warlock's fluff indicates they are studious in their own right and much of their power comes from being taught forbidden knowledge by their patron, or just studying their patron outright in the case of the GOOlock. Think occultists in the mold of Dr Faust who study demonic lore so they can contact and cut a deal with them for secrets beyond the ken of mortals.

They were originally INT casters in the playtest, they were made CHA-based only because they were like that in 3e.

Off the top of my head? Artificer (ie: Magitech guy), Alchemist, AD&D Illusionist, Summoner, some sort of Antimagic Douche.

yeah, because the dude who kicks a thousand times ends up with insanely strong legs

strong

Blame the creator?

But, for once, creator isn't to blame. user's just interpreting attributes in a weird way.

People who can use a longbow are strong.

Just not all over their body.

>that powerful aryan body
i am gonna start archery so i can be a buff ol' santa too!

It's an abstraction, in a game with a heritage derived from another game where every weapon wielded by everybody did 1d6 damage.

But apparently not since that guy said they're just assumed to be strong enough to draw it, even if they've only got 4STR

physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/jn.00117.2004

Sure, but a 16 Strength guy with an 8 Strength bow is going to be shooting arrows with the exact same velocity as an 8 Strength guy. As opposed to, say, a sword, where the same weapon will be more effective when used by the stronger person.

Bows should have a minimum strength requirement but beyond that it makes perfect sense. Dexterity isn't just for playing the piano or fingering girls or doing that trick where you roll a quarter over your knuckles, it's also muscle memory, hand-eye coordination and spatial thinking, which are the things you need to actually hit something with a bow rather than just draw it.

How does that conflict with "They're strong, just not all over their body"?

Most of the arguments about D&D (some of which have been going on for decades) revolve around the problems that come with taking a core game that was Actually Good™ and trying to make it all things to all people.

You can go a lot of different places with the rules presented by Gygax and Arneson, but you can't go all places at once. Particularity and a limited scope is part of what makes it good.

Dexterity does everything my dude. It's just the best and most important stat.

i exhaled while smiling, gj

I remember hearing some stuff about Warlock being much different during the early material, but it was later changed. I've heard anons say it was because "muh Int wizards" were complaining, but I doubt that could be the only reason.
If I were to make a guess, I'd assume Charisma is not only used as the power of you own personality to pull magic as you will it, like the sorcerer, but also as creating magic through more brutish means. Kinda like how charisma can be used for both persuasion and intimidation.

I don't see why a Warlock cannot be both Wisdom or Intelligence based. I could see a Cleric to a god making a deeper pact with it in order to gain far more, much needed, power and have something like that be Wisdom based.

Pretty much how I see it too.
I think every player I've had play a Warlock has done the "I find a book, it gives me powers" to explain their class knowledge.

Yeah, I heard about that a bit.
I could easily see a Lovecraftian archaeologist losing his mind after finding a huge puzzle made up of pieces that, when he finally manages to put together, after years of attempting it, has him come face-to-face with an elder god for just enough time to leave some lasting marks.
Out of curiosity, do you know why they changed it again? Did it have to do with people (read: Wizard players) not liking the change to Int or was it just because Charisma was the first iteration?

So you're saying that a frail, borderline crippled wizard with minimal strength has powerful muscles, but only the ones needed to pull a bow and only when pulling a bow? Can barely lift half his own weight, but can draw a bow just as well as the swolebarian

Obviously not just any wizard. By default, they don't have longbow proficiency.

But a frail, bordline crippled *elven* wizard with minimal strength would.

a heavy draw-weight warbow, which is designed to shoot at very long range, doesn't really make sense for an adventurer to have though. you'd be better off just having a slightly stronger hunter's self-bow and using different arrows.

what if I cast a curse on him that reduces his STR to 1?

Still has those muscles and can still shoot it just as well.

I have to admire your internal consistency but you're committing yourself to a retarded stance

His elven pride would not allow him to falter while drawing the arrow back. Such is the strength of his elven heritage.

>mfw people think all longbows are English longbows

I don't know who is, but he's not the one who has been positing that proficiency reflects the requisite strength needed to draw a longbow.

Yes I am.

OH SNAP just got blown the FUCK out

I suddenly understand the premise of /pol/'s belief that there are people who would claim a stance on a given topic and then make it look as retarded as possible, for the sole purpose of making others who hold that stance also look retarded.

It's not a pleasant feeling.

user your stance was already retarded.

>spicy wizard
That sounds more like CON based caster user. How else is the Spicy Wizard supposed to shove down his mouth the five Naga chillies needed to cast Capasaicin Spray?

Buddy, it's okay to use both Veeky Forums and Reddit but please learn the difference.

>Spicy Wizard

Holy fuck, now I want to make a Guy Fieri based wizard with a spell list consisting of different ways to cook shit.

Is it really a "belief" when they're one of the worst offenders?

>CON based caster

all I want is Vladimir from LoL desu

You should read Dungeon Meshi for inspiration.

yeah, they're projecting. it's pretty normal human behavior

I dunno, why isn't your dexterity relevant to hitting someone with an axe? Stats are abstractions to let people create archetypal characters

>is it feminism?

I'm not sure what misunderstandings you have of the world that makes you think this is a sensible question.

Pretty sure that bit was just a joke, but I admit Poe's Law is in full effect there.

I play a CHA rogue, what now?

Nigger, you'd better be a swashbuckler, or you can just pull the wool over a bunch of rubes' eyes in another town.

OP here, it was a (regrettable, in hindsight) joke. But I've heard people seriously suggest that and was wondering if any coherent defenses of that position exist

For the tabletop, no, no such position exists.

For television and movies, such a position exists, because Hollywood hasn't really made a good spot for beefcake Amazon women that are stronk like bear and all that jazz. The natural alternative is excellent aim with a bow, or lightning-fast rapier shenanigans.

Outside of those two instances, it doesn't matter because we've long since entered the age of "God made man, but Mister Colt made them equal."

I'm a Arcane trickster specializing in illusion magic.

/pol/ detected
>inb4 bogeyman. You know who you are, stop lying.

Even IRL we separate things like boxing by weight class even within the same gender. Less than 10 pounds difference can be considered an unfair advantage.

...