Modern compound bow vs. legendary weapons?

[Atgxtg]

He might have. It's possible to just get lucky every once in awhile.

I think it is worth noting though that such stories list specific one off feats or archery, not repeated shots.

[Atgxtg]

It is true. This is the reason why I think it is not necessary to go too far in the simulation of the physics of archery: bows are anyway practically not used up to their maximum performances. Bows of the same kind are also never exactly the same, except may be compounds.

They don't have to be. Two weapons don't have have to be exactly the same to give similar performance. It doesn't matter what type or shape bow one uses, but how heavy the draw is.

OK, a composite bow can send an arrow beyond 400m, but which archer would like to do it? It is practically impossible to hit anyway and the arrow would be wasted -an lost: target too small, arrow too slow to do much damage, flight deviated by wind, distance too difficult to estimate… if you can see the target at all! OK, a stronger bow will shoot at longer distance and have a straighter flight at short distance, but not if you can’t pull it properly.

Actually quite a few archers would do it. THe reason why it is called archery is because you arch the shot. The key to the skill of medieval archery was that they didn't point the arrows right at thier targets at long rangers but had to aim above their targets to get the range. A stronger bow won't be used for a straighter flight, but for more power and range with an arched flight.

But, when used at such rangers archers were firing en masses at a body of enermy soldiers rather than trying to hit individuals. A couple of hundred guys marching in lines on an open field are a much easier target. THe archer can aim for the center ofthe group and even if his shot is off target he has a good chance of hitting someone.

The ranges given by the rules are the practically usable –and practically used- ranges, not the extreme ranges. There are some differences which are enough to simulate the different performances of bows. Moreover, a rule is made to run a game: either you make a bow simulator, which is a game in itself, or you run a RPG: do we really care if a target is at 120m, 135m or 83.65m? “Within range”, “out of range”, “at close range” are mostly enough for RPG. Add the ½ db to simulate the different strengths –a strong guy can pull a strong bow but still can't better aim -, and that’s enough

Yes, we DO care about what the range is, otherwise we woudln't have range stats at all. And the 1/2 db for bows is a terrible rule. It doesn't matter how strong the archer is if he isn't using a bow of the proper draw weight. Overboweing a light bow is going to ruin the bow-especially a wooden bow. Every time you overdraw such a bow you weaken it. It it doesn't break from the strain, it will gradually lose power.

Of course, it is possible to add some finesse: I allowed 3 kinds of arrows with different bonus/penalties in ranges and damage and 2 settings with different ranges for the composite bows, and I think this is a good compromise between simulation and playability. More would have been unplayable.

So, back to the compound bow, a few ideas:

- make it easier to aim

- replace the 1/2db with a +2 instead (the strength of the user is not as important as with traditional bows)

[Zit]

Yes, we DO care about what the range is, otherwise we woudln't have range stats at all. And the 1/2 db for bows is a terrible rule. It doesn't matter how strong the archer is if he isn't using a bow of the proper draw weight. Overboweing a light bow is going to ruin the bow-especially a wooden bow. Every time you overdraw such a bow you weaken it. It it doesn't break from the strain, it will gradually lose power.

I didn't mean that we don't care about range, only that we do not care about knowing it so acurately, within a few meters. As I said, long/normal/short is most of the time far enough. Anyway no archer can tell the distance with 1m acuracy.

Regarding the light bow and the 1/2db rule -which I found terrible as well at first- the limited draw is simulated by the basic damage: a Self Bow makes 1d6+1 while a Composite Bow makes 1d8+1. This is the intrinsec power of the average bow. Now, as we both said, there are several sizes and strength for each kind of bow: no two self bows are exactly the same. I presume that the rule assumes that every archer uses the most optimized bow for his size ans strength, and the 1/2 db rule works: a stronger bowman uses a stronger bow and makes the arrow flight faster. The rule is also tailored for human beings. Of course if a giant with 3d6 db draws the string, it should break instead of providing 3d3 db (if he can even properly hold the bow). Except if the self bow was make for him from a big trunk... No rule is perfect and can realy simulate the complexity of real life, but were the rule fails, good sense helps.

[rust]

I think it is worth noting though that such stories list specific one off feats or archery, not repeated shots.

This is a point that is indeed often ignored. Take 1,000 skilled archers and each one's

best 1,000 arrows, and even feats with a probability of 1 : 1,000,000 become likely.

And these are the exceptional events which get recorded, not the other less impres-

sive 999,999 shots.

[Atgxtg]

This is a point that is indeed often ignored. Take 1,000 skilled archers and each one's

best 1,000 arrows, and even feats with a probability of 1 : 1,000,000 become likely.

And these are the exceptional events which get recorded, not the other less impres-

sive 999,999 shots.

Yup. I call this the "So much for Smaug" problem.

In BRP, with % dice, success levels, ands multiple attempts, special successes and even critical hits go from being a rarity to a certainty, when dealing with multiple attempts. So we end up praising Bard for making the specialtular shot that drops the dragon, and gloss over the other guys who either failed to hit the dragon, or who failed to penetrate the dragon's armor. Eventually you reach a point where that double max damage, no armor hit is going to pop up and generally end the fight.

Overall, I don't mind kicking out the missile weapon ranges another step, x4 range at 1/4 skill, but there is always the problem of the effect of repeated attempts such as massed fire. The success chances only get so low. And probably not low enough to handle such situations. And the fumble changes probably get ,much to high there, too.

[Atgxtg]

I didn't mean that we don't care about range, only that we do not care about knowing it so acurately, within a few meters. As I said, long/normal/short is most of the time far enough. Anyway no archer can tell the distance with 1m acuracy.

True and true. But that doesn't mean that we should treat all composite bows or all long bows as the same.

Regarding the light bow and the 1/2db rule -which I found terrible as well at first- the limited draw is simulated by the basic damage: a Self Bow makes 1d6+1 while a Composite Bow makes 1d8+1. This is the intrinsec power of the average bow.

[rust]

Something along the lines of rating bows as light, medium, heavy and so on according to wielder's STR would work and be just as easy to implement as the current method, and a lot more realistic.

Most games do this for crossbows, although there are just as many different types of

crossbows (e.g. material of the bow, material of the bowstring, etc.) as there are ty-

pes of bow, and in my opinion this works perfectly well and avoids a lot of discussions

about more or less irrelevant construction details which do not really influence the per-

formance of the weapon that much.

[Toadmaster]

In fact, the length of the bow has little to do with it's power. A bowyer can get just about any power he wants out of a bow when he crafts it.

I don't think that is completely true. Different styles of bow make adjustments. A longbow uses length for leverage, while a composite bow or a recurve bow use different materials / shape to gain power without requiring the length of the longbow.

I think you are on the right track though. Bows should be far more customized than most games make them, individually tailored to the user. I really can't use a bow made for my 12 year old son and expect the same kind of performance as one made for me. If anything the type of bow should be a modifier, wood bows being the base, short and long, composite, recurve being modifiers. So a short composite recurve bow may be similar in power to a long wood bow. It is probably getting far to detailed to get into the height of the archer, but strength seems a perfectly reasonable measure, so rate bows that way. Using a bow of different strength should result in a penalty, less damage, less accurate etc. +1 / -1 str probably not that big of a deal, but someone with a 16 strength using a bow made for someone with an 8 strength should be (and might even look funny).

[Toadmaster]

In my experience it was a bit like artillery methods when it came to longer

ranges: The first arrow usually went too far, the second arrow usually went

too short, and from the third arrow onwards the target was in serious dan-

ger of being hit - until the wind changed ...

In other words, I am willing to believe that Yesüngge hit a target at a distan-

ce of 530 meters, but I am not willing to believe that he did so with his first

arrow. Or his second. Probably not even his third.

This is probably true, leaving out the other 12 shots makes for a much better story.

Luck certainly plays a part too. If you toss a basketball over your shoulder and it goes right through the hoop, you walk away like it was no big deal, you don't try to do it a second time.

[Atgxtg]

I don't think that is completely true. Different styles of bow make adjustments. A longbow uses length for leverage, while a composite bow or a recurve bow use different materials / shape to gain power without requiring the length of the longbow.

You can get the same "pull" for a short bow as with a long by making the bow thicker, recurving the tips, reflexing the bow (basically building it so it can bend over backwards) building it out of several materials, and/or backing it with horn (i.e. making it a composite bow). THe advantage of the long bow isn't in greater pull, but in that greater leverage you mentioned. It makes it easier to draw back the bow. A 100 pound longbow is easier to drawback than a 100 pound composite bow-becuase the increase in draw comes on more gradually.

I think you are on the right track though. Bows should be far more customized than most games make them, individually tailored to the user. I really can't use a bow made for my 12 year old son and expect the same kind of performance as one made for me. If anything the type of bow should be a modifier, wood bows being the base, short and long, composite, recurve being modifiers. So a short composite recurve bow may be similar in power to a long wood bow. It is probably getting far to detailed to get into the height of the archer, but strength seems a perfectly reasonable measure, so rate bows that way. Using a bow of different strength should result in a penalty, less damage, less accurate etc. +1 / -1 str probably not that big of a deal, but someone with a 16 strength using a bow made for someone with an 8 strength should be (and might even look funny).

I don't think we need a great deal of variance, but I think we could use one STR/Damage/Range table. I think the basic bows are something like self STR 9, Long STR 11, and Composite STR 13, So it looks simple eoungh to do the progression. Something like 4 points of STR per "Step" in the damage.

STR 5: 1D4+1

STR 9: 1D6+1

STR 13: 1D8+1

STR: 17: 1D10+1

Longbows seem to drop the STR requirements by 2, but might up the DEX requirements (I'll check).

What I did before for another RPG, and which I think would port over is allowing a user to build a bow for a given draw weight (damage), and then getting a default STR, but allowing them to tweak that number a bit with skill. For example, a long bow could reduce the STR required by 2, a recurved bow by 1, compound bow by up to half,and so forth. THese reductions would be "paid for" with negative modfiers tot he crafting rolls, and/or increased cost and manufacturing time (it takes a few extra days to steam and bend the tips of a recurve bow, or double recurve, and some decent engineering skills to make a compound bow).

[Atgxtg]

This is probably true, leaving out the other 12 shots makes for a much better story.

Luck certainly plays a part too. If you toss a basketball over your shoulder and it goes right through the hoop, you walk away like it was no big deal, you don't try to do it a second time.

Or kick one in for 75 feet. I saw that once. Once.

[Atgxtg]

Most games do this for crossbows, although there are just as many different types of

crossbows (e.g. material of the bow, material of the bowstring, etc.) as there are ty-

pes of bow, and in my opinion this works perfectly well and avoids a lot of discussions

about more or less irrelevant construction details which do not really influence the per-

formance of the weapon that much.

Exactly. We rarely get into the incredible wide range of draw weights of crossbows (from 30 foot-pounds, up over 1200 foot-pounds). IMO that is the way to go with all bows.

What I could see would be using the guidelines I posted early and giving crossbows a DEX reduction and higher starting skill (easier to use), and the ability to use a mechanic aid to increase the user's STR. A lever might be worth +4 STR, A crank might be worth +8 or +10.

[SDLeary]

Yes, but there is a lack of good sense in the bow rules as written. For example, technically speaking an actual longbow (welsh warbow) is both a self bow and a composite bow. Yet it is treated as neither. A Japanese Longbow is a composite bow and not a self bow, but the rules make some assumptions about the qualities of self, long and composite bows that are not true. Realstically Longbows are not necessarily the most powerful bows. In fact, the length of the bow has little to do with it's power. A bowyer can get just about any power he wants out of a bow when he crafts it.

No. The Welsh/English Warbow is NOT composite. It is solely a self-bow; a bow fashioned out of a single piece of wood. Earlier in European History there were laminated Longbows, and the Japanese longbow (the Yumi) was of this type of construction. Based on pictures in Longbow and The Great War Bow, that there may have been some composite long bows in the Islands in the Middle Ages, but these were probably from a different tradition; perhaps a leftover of the Roman occupation.

Composite Bows are generally higher powered for a given size than the self bow. Thus good for horseback use, giving greater range and perhaps penetration to a comparably sized European bow (Short bow, hunting bow, bow).

Composite Bows are generally recurve, as were many prehistoric European longbows.

SDLeary

Edited January 3, 2013 by SDLeary

[Atgxtg]

No. The Welsh/English Warbow is NOT composite. It is solely a self-bow; a bow fashioned out of a single piece of wood.

Nope. it's a composite bow. A natural composite bow. The wood of the Yew tree forms a natural composite, with the heartwood and sapwood acting the way bone and sinew does on a built & backed composite bow. That's why the English imported Yew, because of those specific properties.

Lamination is not the key, it is being constructed of materials with different properties on the inside and outside that resist compression and streching (respectively) allowing the bow to be pulled farther back without breaking.

Yes, because otherwise there is no point in going through the trouble to make them. Compsoite bows are generally harder to make and take longer than simple self bows.

A lot of composite bows, especially horse bows are reflex bows. Reflex bows are built so that they curve "backwards" when unstrung. That increases the amount of weight the bow draws since, even when the bow is not being pulled back it is already under load.

[rust]

A lot of composite bows, especially horse bows are reflex bows. Reflex bows are built so that they curve "backwards" when unstrung. That increases the amount of weight the bow draws since, even when the bow is not being pulled back it is already under load.

A nice example of a composite reflex bow in its unstrung state, which probably gives

an impression of the power stored in the bow even without a draw when it is strung:

File:Gak gung.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[SDLeary]

While this is true, that is not how the bows themselves are classed. A good bowyer making (carving the stave) a self-bow always aligns the wood (of whatever type) in a way maximizes the potential of the bow; generally heartwood on the interior for compression and spring and the harder outer layers on the outside for strength. Yew may have become the wood of choice, but in the 12th C., Elm appears to have been often used by the Welsh.

Yes, but a self-bow is not constructed... its carved. A laminated bow and composite bows are constructed out of differing woods and other materials such as bone, all glued together.

A good self-bow could take years (less now of course) because of wood seasoning methods. Composites tended to come from areas without appropriate wood supplies to create self-bows. Ancient Eastern Med and Near East for example.

Most actually. Recurve was also used in Europe to a lesser extent during the prehistoric period with laminated bows (short and long).

SDLeary

[Atgxtg]

BUt it is a type of composite bow, technically speaking. It might not be what people think of when they use the term composite bow, but it still is one, as well as being a self bow.

As for Elm, I believe it, along with several other woods had similar proerties, and there was only so much Yew wood to go around. You can make a bow out of pratically any wood (or practically any other material that is sufficently stiff and flexible enough to do the job), but some woods are better than others at the task.

Yes, self bows are carved not constricted, but that doe not mean that a composite bow has to be constructed. A natural composite bow is still a composite bow. Likewise modern composite bows are ususally NOT glued together, but probably held together with a different type of adhesive, but they are still composite bows. .

Yup. Generally speaking, although that wasn't always the case. The Japanese, for example, probably could have made self bows, but made composite bows-probably becuause the bows that made it to Japan were compposite bows. And composite bows weren't much faster to produce that self bows in the long run.

Most horse bows, yeah. At least those of the steppe nomads. The Japanese were kind of odd in coming up with their asymmetrical composite horse/longbow.

OH, I've been toying with a table that rates bows by STR/damage/range. It includs crossbows, and looks pretty good so far.

[rust]

The Japanese were kind of odd in coming up with their asymmetrical composite horse/longbow.

Not really, asymmetrical long horse bows seem to have been quite common in early

Central Asia and East Asia, one example are early Hunnish bows. What makes Ja-

pan unique is that this type of bow was used there long after it had been replaced

by smaller bows elsewhere.

[Atgxtg]

I've running into a couple of snags with the "bow table". All concerning range.

The missile ranges started off as the "effective" ranges from RQ3. THis causes a few problems as the ranges in RQ3 were not as linarar as those in BRP. A self bow had a range of 90/120, a longbow 90/275, and a composite bow 120/225. That meant that a long bow had the same effeective range as a self bow, but not as long as a composite bow, yet the longbow had a longer maximum range than the composite bow.

In BRP the ranges are self bow 80, longbow 90, composite bow 120. THat gives composite bows a great range advatage with BRPs ranges.

FOr the table, I'd like to tie range to STR/Damage and give longbows and composite bows the same range. Do people think 90, 120 or some other value would be best?

Likewise, crossbow ranges used to have very short effective ranges, but long max ranges since crossbows were not arched as often. Like with longbows, this is hard to mimic in BRP. About the only thing I can think of is to apply some sort of penalty to their first range increment that doesn't apply later on. Any ideas on this?

Lastly, does a 27kg/60lb draw weight seem too high for the STR 9 self bow?

[Zit]

You can get the same "pull" for a short bow as with a long by making the bow thicker, recurving the tips, reflexing the bow (basically building it so it can bend over backwards) building it out of several materials, and/or backing it with horn (i.e. making it a composite bow). THe advantage of the long bow isn't in greater pull, but in that greater leverage you mentioned. It makes it easier to draw back the bow. A 100 pound longbow is easier to drawback than a 100 pound composite bow-becuase the increase in draw comes on more gradually.

But a composite bow (at least in its central aisan form) has a better efficiency than a long bow, and you will pull less than 100 lbs to get the same power: I never tried one, but all the comments I've read point out how easier and more comfortable it is to use a composite bow compared to the other designs.

Anyway, there is the theory (a self bow could be as strong as a composite), and the reality, where composite and long bows have always been seen as deadlier as self bows. There are many reasons for this, including technical, which limit the maximum achievable power from a single design. So I’m not sure I would allow a self bow to make 1d10+1 damage, even if it is in theory possible: you won’t probably find the right wood, the thickness of the bow may be too big for a human hand, the shock in the arm to brutal… Anyway, the maximum doable with a composite shall be greater than the maximum doable with a self bow.

I don't think we need a great deal of variance, but I think we could use one STR/Damage/Range table. I think the basic bows are something like self STR 9, Long STR 11, and Composite STR 13, So it looks simple eoungh to do the progression. Something like 4 points of STR per "Step" in the damage.

STR 5: 1D4+1

STR 9: 1D6+1

STR 13: 1D8+1

STR: 17: 1D10+1

Longbows seem to drop the STR requirements by 2, but might up the DEX requirements (I'll check).

What I did before for another RPG, and which I think would port over is allowing a user to build a bow for a given draw weight (damage), and then getting a default STR, but allowing them to tweak that number a bit with skill. For example, a long bow could reduce the STR required by 2, a recurved bow by 1, compound bow by up to half,and so forth.

Do you mean: a self bow usable for a STR 9-12 makes 1D6+1 damage (or a self bow requires a STR 9-12 for 1d6+1), while a long bow made for STR 7-10 does as much damage (or a long bow requires a STR 7-10 for 1D6+1 damage) ? So if you have a STR 08 and want to make 1d6+1 damage, you need to build a long or composite bow ?

If this is the case, we could instead keep the same fix basic damage as it is in the rules, one for each kind of bow, as per all the weapons in brp, replace your STR adjustment with 1/2db and keep the STR categories unchanged: we stick more to the rules for a comparable effect. Ex: a self bow made for a STR 9-12 archer and used by its owner range makes 1d6+1. A long bow made for the STR 5-8 makes 1d8+1 (long bow)-1d2 (low STR), which is almost the same as 1d6+1. So, I need less STR for the same damage. And for the same STR range, the long bow makes more damage (1d8+1 vs. 1d6+1). It is just like what you suggested, only calculated the other way but keeping some consistency with the weapon rules. It implies however other ranges of STR as the ones you suggested. Whatever the version, we don’t need the minimal STR requirement anymore, or am I wrong? One can build a long bow for a low STR.

So the only modification to the rules would be to replace the minimum STR with the STR range it has been made for (in my example, long bow, 1d8+1, STR 05-08). The standard rules mechanics will make the adjustment by themselves (1d8+1-1d2). Correct ?

I think the SIZ shall be considered as well, since the power of a bow is defined by its strength per inch: a strong Dwarf cannot fully pull the string of a bow made for a human simply because he’s too small. Now, what if the archer has the wrong SIZ and the wrong STR?

To be continued…

[rust]

In BRP the ranges are self bow 80, longbow 90, composite bow 120.

The historical records in East and West seem to agree that the maximum effective range

for a bow handled by a professional archer is somewhere near 200 meters. For example,

in England under Henry VIII an archery practice range had to be at least 220 yards long.

Therefore I think that 200 meters should be the upper limit for any bow's effective ran-

ge in realistic rules. One could call it the extreme range for longbows and composite bows.

The most common long range for traditional archery contests seems to be somewhere

around 120 meters, so this is probably the range at which a trained archer can be expec-

ted to hit a target at least as often as he misses it. In my view this could make a good

long range for longbows and composite bows and an acceptable extreme range for less

efficient types of bows.

The short range for any kind of bow could probably be about 60 meters. This is much for

an amateur archer, but the characters in a roleplaying game could be considered more

skilled than that. This would lead to a medium range between about 60 meters and about

120 meters for longbows and composite bows, and perhaps 60 meters and about 90 me-

ters for less efficient types of bows.

So my idea would be 60 m / 120 m / 200 m for longbows and composite bows, and per-

haps 60 m / 90 m / 120 m for "lesser" bows. This could be the ranges for all "average"

bows, bows custom made for their users of average size and strength.

I am not sure that a high strength automatically translates into a high damage, because

most of the damage is determined by the size and shape of the arrow head, and by fea-

tures like arrow heads fixed to the arrow shaft or only loosely connected with the arrow

shaft (which cannot be removed by pulling out the arrow, etc.). As I see it, the historical

attempts to design stronger bows aimed at the bows' range, while the historical attempts

to increase the damage concentrated on the arrow heads.

Well, just a few thoughts ...

[Atgxtg]

But a composite bow (at least in its central aisan form) has a better efficiency than a long bow,

Yes, which is why the long bow is easier to pull back. It's like the inclined plane thing they did at school. You do more work but it easier.

and you will pull less than 100 lbs to get the same power: I never tried one, but all the comments I've read point out how easier and more comfortable it is to use a composite bow compared to the other designs.

I think that should probably be best simulated with a skill modifier, not a damage or STR reduction.

Anyway, there is the theory (a self bow could be as strong as a composite), and the reality, where composite and long bows have always been seen as deadlier as self bows. There are many reasons for this, including technical, which limit the maximum achievable power from a single design. So I’m not sure I would allow a self bow to make 1d10+1 damage, even if it is in theory possible: you won’t probably find the right wood, the thickness of the bow may be too big for a human hand, the shock in the arm to brutal… Anyway, the maximum doable with a composite shall be greater than the maximum doable with a self bow.

UH the maximum doable is the same, it's finding somebody capable of the "doing" that is the problem. It's nor that hard to get the wood to make a self bow of a very high draw weight. Too high to pull back. The problem would be that if the bow is too short, you can't pull the string back to your cheek to aim.

Do you mean: a self bow usable for a STR 9-12 makes 1D6+1 damage (or a self bow requires a STR 9-12 for 1d6+1), while a long bow made for STR 7-10 does as much damage (or a long bow requires a STR 7-10 for 1D6+1 damage) ? So if you have a STR 08 and want to make 1d6+1 damage, you need to build a long or composite bow ?

Not quite. What I mean is that a STR 9 bow does 1D6+1, and a STR 13 bow does 1D8+1 (1D6+2 if we get into crossbows), regardless of why type of bow it is.

But, the longbow gets a 2 point reduction in the STR requirement because it is easier to pull back, it will pay for this with a higher ENC and production time. . Likewise a light crossbow gets a 4 point STR reduction due to the footstrap or lever used to help pull back on the string. Note that in any case, no db is added. So if a strong (STR 17) guy wants to do more damage, he needs to find a STR 17 bow.

If this is the case, we could instead keep the same fix basic damage as it is in the rules, one for each kind of bow, as per all the weapons in brp, replace your STR adjustment with 1/2db and keep the STR categories unchanged: we stick more to the rules for a comparable effect. Ex: a self bow made for a STR 9-12 archer and used by its owner range makes 1d6+1. A long bow made for the STR 5-8 makes 1d8+1 (long bow)-1d2 (low STR), which is almost the same as 1d6+1. So, I need less STR for the same damage. And for the same STR range, the long bow makes more damage (1d8+1 vs. 1d6+1). It is just like what you suggested, only calculated the other way but keeping some consistency with the weapon rules. It implies however other ranges of STR as the ones you suggested. Whatever the version, we don’t need the minimal STR requirement anymore, or am I wrong? One can build a long bow for a low STR.

So the only modification to the rules would be to replace the minimum STR with the STR range it has been made for (in my example, long bow, 1d8+1, STR 05-08). The standard rules mechanics will make the adjustment by themselves (1d8+1-1d2). Correct ?

Nope. Your logic is fine, but it's not the direction I was going in, as hopefully my previous explaintion shows.

I think the SIZ shall be considered as well, since the power of a bow is defined by its strength per inch:

STR per inch isn't a factor, as the shooter pulls back on the string. The STR/inch is just the material STR of the bow and deterimines when it will break.

a strong Dwarf cannot fully pull the string of a bow made for a human simply because he’s too small. Now, what if the archer has the wrong SIZ and the wrong STR?

To be continued…

I disagree. The dwarf could pull the bow back, it is just that in doing so the string would be pulled back past his head. The dwarf probably would only pull the bow back partway for aiming purposes (and do reduced damage) but he would be capable of pulling the bow back. Although....the idea of a hobbit with a troll bow is quite comical. Maybe you got a point here.

As a rough guide off the top on my head...

Low STR: Damage and range limited to your STR, and a penalty to skill of -5 per point of STR lacking, as it will be harder to pull back and aim.

Too much STR: You should limit your damage and range tot hat of the bow, but can overbow at a risk. Probably compare the STR you use against the STR of the bow on resistance table to see what happens to it. If you On a CS the bow breaks, on a SS the bow loses 1 STR (and can lose damage and range).

Low SIZ: (We will probably need to rate the bows with a SIZ like armor). Within a couple of points no problem. 3 or more points idfference means you have to drop the effective STR of the bow, or take a skill penalty of 5% per point short.

Too much SIZ: Within 2 points or so okay. Otherwise either take the skill penalty as per low SIZ, or risk damage to the bow as per too much STR. Uuse SIZ like STR on the resistance table.

[Atgxtg]

The historical records in East and West seem to agree that the maximum effective range

for a bow handled by a professional archer is somewhere near 200 meters. For example,

in England under Henry VIII an archery practice range had to be at least 220 yards long.

Therefore I think that 200 meters should be the upper limit for any bow's effective ran-

ge in realistic rules. One could call it the extreme range for longbows and composite bows.

Yeah, but EFFECTIVE range in BRP isn't the same as maximum effective range. In BRP it's simply the distance one can shoot at full skill. An archer can shoot twice this distance at half skill, 3 times it at 4 times skill, and four times it at 1/8th skill. So a self bow with a 80 meter range can be fired at up to 80 meters at full skill, 81-160 meters at half skill, 161-240 meters at one--quarter skill, and 241-320 meters at one-eighth skill. So by the rules the bow can hit targets out to 320 meters. If you are very lucky, or have some nice magic to back up you.

Now with modern firearms effective range is considered the distance that an average qualified shooter can hit a man-sized target 50% of the time,but in BRP terms that is probably about the same as base range.

Okay, 120m is exactly the range for a composite bow in BRP, so I can use that, and bump up longbows to the same range.

The way it works in the BRP rules is short range is half the range stat. So 60m would be spot on for a composite or long bow , while about 40m will be the range for a lighter bow.

That's pretty close to what I got. Going with the BRP rules, and rating bow rangess by STR/draw weight/damage I get:

STR 9 bow: 40/80/160 (half skill)/240 (quarter skill)/360 (eighth skill)

STR 13 bow: 60/120/240/360/480

Btw, the range formula seems to be Range = 10m per point of STR -10m.

You have to have force behind the head to do damage. Consider the damage listed to be the "base" damage for a given weight of bow. Arrow head could provide a modifier. Hunting arrows could do more damage, but suck against armor, war arrows would be good at penetrating armor, but do less damage overall.

Thanks. I was asking for a few.

[Toadmaster]

Good ideas, not much to add but wanted to throw my support behind factoring in SIZ somehow.

As draw length does play a part in the final pull weight, perhaps being larger than the SIZ rating could offset Str a bit, or provide a boost in damage (next category up) to represent the increased pull. Being smaller by a bit could require additional str to make up for the longer than comfortable pull, or again cost some damage as the bow is not being used to its potential. Obviously large differences could result in breaking the bow (pulled to far) or being ineffective (despite great strength, the body structure just isn't there to get a proper length draw).

[Zit]

An archer can shoot twice this distance at half skill, 3 times it at 4 times skill, and four times it at 1/8th skill. So a self bow with a 80 meter range can be fired at up to 80 meters at full skill, 81-160 meters at half skill, 161-240 meters at one--quarter skill, and 241-320 meters at one-eighth skill. So by the rules the bow can hit targets out to 320 meters. If you are very lucky, or have some nice magic to back up you.

Were did you find this ? I’ve only seen the DEX/3 rule p. 206 for short range, which is absolutely not tailored for bows, and the skill penalty for medium range (twice the effective range at 1/2 skill) and the long range (4 times effective range at 1/4 skill)

Now that I understood your rule, I find it quite interesting. We only have to adjust the values.

That's pretty close to what I got. Going with the BRP rules, and rating bow rangess by STR/draw weight/damage I get:

STR 9 bow: 40/80/160 (half skill)/240 (quarter skill)/360 (eighth skill)

STR 13 bow: 60/120/240/360/480

A bowyer in Germany proposes among others play tool self bows for 3+ year old children, 7-12lbs (STR 01 ?) or self bows for bigger children or beginners 12-40lbs (STR 5 ?). So a 40-60lbs bow would be in the STR 09 range.

I made a self bow with this guy (of rattan), about 25 lbs (STR 05), the extreme maximum range was about 80m. With a better wood, we could reach may be 100m? With twice as much draw, let’s say 200m, 240m maximum. I would therefore stay by the BRP’s 60m effective range for a STR 09.

Let’s compare your suggestion and the BRP:

Self bow

Your rule: range 80m, STR 9, 1d6+1

BRP Rule: range 60m, STR9, 1d6+1

Composite bow

Yours: range 120m, STR12 (=13-1), 1d8+1

BRP’s: range 120m, STR13, 1d8+1+1/2db (which is often 1d2 at STR13) = more damage than in your rule

Long Bow:

Yours: range 120m, STR11 (=13-2), 1d8+1

BRP’s: range 100m, STR11, 1d8+1

Self and long bows are getting better with your rule, while the composite loses its range and damage advantage and is made less efficient than the long bow. Of course, it can be used on horseback. I would still increase the STR bonus for composite at least to the level of the long bow: composite bows had curved stiffeners (”siyah”) which brought the same advantage as the “inclined plane thing we did at school” . I will therefore introduce the composite with stiffeners (STR -2, from the 3rd century in central Asia) and without stiffeners (STR -1 for the Scythian or Egyptian composite bows).

This is quite a nice system, with only one single stat block for all the bows allowing to design one’s own bow.

Every kind of bow would be then written this way:

Name, STR bonus … and that’s it

Self Bow, none

Long Bow, -2

Composite bow, -1

Composite bow with stiffeners, -2

Compound bow, x1/2 (or -5 may be more consistent)

For a single bow, since the STR class is equivalent to the damage class, I would simply write

Name, damage class, required STR

Ex:

Horse composite bow with stiffeners, 1d8+1 (we know this corresponds to a STR 13 bow), STR11

Foot composite bow with stiffeners, 1d10+1, STR15

Children composite bow with stiffeners, 1d6+1, STR 7 or 1d4+1, STR 3

Children self bow, 1d4+1, STR 5

All this is of course valid for human-sized bows: a self bow would be a long bow for a hobbit, btu it shall not have the advantages of teh long bow just because it is used by a Hobbit !