Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Originally Posted by The_Red_Queen
I agree thrown weapon damage in 5e seems poor compared to bows, given that the majority of the strength-based ones (spear, javelin, hand axe, etc) do just 1d6. But not being a 5e expert I’m very wary of just changing damage on weapons in case it breaks balance in unexpected ways so I’ll let others comment on that.
There seem to be 2 main reasons for this, both involving changes made in 5e from earlier editions (3.5e) that weren't properly accounted for.
1.) Ranged weapons in 5e add their Dex mod to damage. Previously, you didn't add any bonus to normal projectile weapons' damage.
2.) Crossbows in 5e don't cost anything to load. In 3.5e, light crossbows (1d8) took a move action, and heavy crossbows (1d10) took a full-round action.

Both of these changes make projectile weapons (particularly crossbows) stronger. However, the damage table for these weapons has remained the same. In 3.5e, shortspears/javelins dealt 1d6+Str damage when Thrown, while longbows dealt 1d8 damage but had more range. In 5e, longbows deal more damage and have better range.

p.s. In 3.5e, if you had a negative Str mod, it was applied to longbow damage.

Sounds like 3.5e did it much better.

There should also be a min STR requirement for using a heavy crossbow in general IMO.
On the flip side, there should be a min range, or some restriction, for using a longbow. One on one, face to face combat, you would never be able to shoot someone with a longbow. Shortbow, maybe with quick snap shot against a lightly armored opponent, but no plate penetration whatso ever.