KT

Thren it's not about you specifically. What if we invented a melee weapon that did base 2d8+2 dmg and allowed 2 attacks / rd right off the bat? How many people would spec longsword, mace, flail, etc? It's bad enough that bow spec allows 2 attacks / rd immediately (instead of lv 7), but default double damage on top of it renders all other weapons pointless. I really can't understand how this rule made it into D&D at all--unless bows are unusable within 30' or something? I didn't understand the range stuff very well.

If bows are useless from 0'-30', deal 2x dmg from 30'-50', and deal normal damage from 50'-100', it would make more sense. But if they deal 2x dmg from 0'-30' and normal dmg from 30'-100', I can't understand it at all.

That point and the fact that I'm mainly worried about facing npc archers are the reasons I'm arguing against it . Right now, 2 level 1 archers could wipe our whole party in 1 round. A CLW isn't going to do anything against (1d8+x)*2 twice a round.

It 's just too powerful. I don't see how it makes any sense at all that a shotgun would do less damage than a bow; even if that seems to make sense, I already posted that I'm taking bow if the 2x dmg rule stays and shotgun is ruled to equal xbow.

I just keep posting because Rob hasn't specifically addressed the question.