Bow prices

[womble]

1 hour ago, Furry Fella said:

Cliffs not where your Hippos are they just don't move that far from river access.

Chase 'em over a waterfall?

[M Helsdon]

10 hours ago, womble said:

Pits. Possibly with stakes. Cliffs and fire.

You have to dam the river first.

From ancient Egyptian tomb painting we know they hunted hippos using a javelin or harpoon with a detachable tip to which a rope was tied; many such strikes were needed to seriously injure and kill the animal; the ropes meant that the hunter both retained the tips if they became dislodged (metal blades were expensive) and kept hold of the animal if they weren't. It was a slow and dangerous business, waiting whilst it bled out and tried to kill you. And this wasn't a task performed by an individual - you need others to distract the hippo and to also harpoon it.

http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=157951&partId=1&searchText=copper+egypt+predynastic&page=2

Edited August 24, 2018 by M Helsdon

[Furry Fella]

Back to topic.

A Master Bowyer producing a master work bow of the best materials of his best work in approx 1315 in England cost 3 nobles (a coin weighing 9 grams of gold) so 27 grams of gold

RQG has a standard composite bow by an ordinary crafter costing 150L or 7.5W or 30 grams of gold.

The Master bow was affordable for a professional military archer ( note NOT an officer).

An RQG Minorish Noble or basic Rune Master expects support of 5 Hides of RQ land with a "normal" base return of about 240L (80 for the hide he oversees and 40 each for those with tenants) less family living. So a year's surplus income for a petty noble won't buy a standard composite bow

The concepts are right the numbers are just wrong.

[Atgxtg]

On 8/25/2018 at 7:31 AM, Furry Fella said:

The concepts are right the numbers are just wrong.

Probably because most RPG authors aren't economists or accountants. That's probably a good thing. Imagine an RPG where PCs have to roll after every battle to see how much their equipment has depreciated. 😁. 

 

I could  just see a Rune Lord trying to prove that some treasure wasn't income, and thus he didn't have to give his cult their standard cut. 

Edited August 27, 2018 by Atgxtg

[Furry Fella]

15 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Probably because most RPG authors aren't economists or accountants. That's probably a good thing. Imagine an RPG where PCs have to roll after every battle to see how much their equipment has depreciated. 😁. 

 

I could  just see a Rune Lord trying to prove that some treasure wasn't income, and thus he didn't have to give his cult their standard cut. 

Yes but a surprising number of us are in the analytical professions and have strong backgrounds in history.

Now as I am an analyst & have been a financial analyst (& we can be even more geeky than accountants) the correct term should be Impairment - accelerated degradation over and above normal consumption due to standard use 😀

But I'm much more likely to move in such a direction than the current Hit Points for Weapons and shields etc. That has proved cumbersome and onerous during play. This is an area where I guess it will be back to the future and ignoring attrition of weapons and equipment. Only "spectacular" leading to busted kit in combat. I will almost certainly impose some sort of  check and effort cost to keep gear up o scratch component to represent wear and tear.

Surprise surprise that is a circumstance that I'm thinking about how to put into my ramble on the "test year" 😂. Though not a Rune Level there was a dispute over an inheritance and Tithing 😎

[MJ Sadique]

On 8/25/2018 at 1:31 PM, Furry Fella said:

Back to topic.

...

RQG has a standard composite bow by an ordinary crafter costing 150L or 7.5W or 30 grams of gold.

...

An RQG Minorish Noble or basic Rune Master expects support of 5 Hides of RQ land with a "normal" base return of about 240L (80 for the hide he oversees and 40 each for those with tenants) less family living. So a year's surplus income for a petty noble won't buy a standard composite bow

The concepts are right the numbers are just wrong.

I did not speak into this thread because comparison about Earth VS Glorantha in term of weapons' cost, availability and maintenance are always flawed... and I will only use RQ3 system thanks to Super-Furry Fella because RQG "hold the palm" in term of unrealistic values of cost and income.

As a crafter gains about 60-80L per year (RQG p403) and a crossbow cost 80L and a bow around 150L (RQG p213); Even if it's rare someone could live with selling ony one crossbow per year or one Bow per 2 years. It's the same with melee weapons, a blacksmith could secure a year of income by selling 8 Daggers... O_o

No need to be a financial analyst to understand how wrong it is !

Some could find some arguments but there is a problem with weapons prices OR income. I think it's mainly because the designers choose to recalculate the income and money value for fixing some old problems (RQ2 training and spells cost mainly) BUT they forgot to adjust the prices of weapons ... 

 

As reminder : in RQ3 a master crafter gains was around 6000g per year or 112 per week and weapons cost was around 150L for a bow, 350 for a longbow which mean a crafter need to built 40 bows or 18 Longbow per year for is income. it may not correspond to reality but it's a lot more REALIST !

[Atgxtg]

10 hours ago, Furry Fella said:

Yes but a surprising number of us are in the analytical professions and have strong backgrounds in history.

Or just have to deal with the effects of RPG economics. What tends to happen is that since players aren't playing shopkeepers, prices are of the "that feels about right" type, generally when looked at from the viewpoint of modern day people (because we are). It holds up fairly well, too, as long as players are adventures and don't look too closely at the prices. It when you have people trying to make a living with the economics that things become bizarre. 

10 hours ago, Furry Fella said:

But I'm much more likely to move in such a direction than the current Hit Points for Weapons and shields etc. That has proved cumbersome and onerous during play. This is an area where I guess it will be back to the future and ignoring attrition of weapons and equipment. Only "spectacular" leading to busted kit in combat. I will almost certainly impose some sort of  check and effort cost to keep gear up o scratch component to represent wear and tear.

You could always limit weapon damage to specials, criticals and fumbles. 

 

[Furry Fella]

7 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

You could always limit weapon damage to specials, criticals and fumbles. 

That's about what it works out to yes. There was a bit of rule of thumb looking at the comparative rolls to. Small shields are still a problem as they are significantly different in use and employment. It is actually the construction materials and techniques that mater more than size - but that's a separate topic and analysis.

[Atgxtg]

4 hours ago, Furry Fella said:

That's about what it works out to yes. There was a bit of rule of thumb looking at the comparative rolls to. Small shields are still a problem as they are significantly different in use and employment. It is actually the construction materials and techniques that mater more than size - but that's a separate topic and analysis.

I did a conversion of an old RQ 3 article for shields. You might want to take a peek at the thread. It worked out to AP, cost and weight multiplier for different construction types. I don't have RQG, so prices are probably off the most-I just went with RQ2 pricing. 

 

[MJ Sadique]

7 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

I did a conversion of an old RQ 3 article for shields.

Where can I find this ... oh Greaaaaaaat Atgxtg ???

[g33k]

On 8/27/2018 at 10:30 AM, Atgxtg said:

Probably because most RPG authors aren't economists or accountants. That's probably a good thing. Imagine an RPG where PCs have to roll after every battle to see how much their equipment has depreciated. 😁. 

I could  just see a Rune Lord trying to prove that some treasure wasn't income, and thus he didn't have to give his cult their standard cut. 

I think this belongs over on the Issaries stealing-vs-robbery & raids / combat-loot thread.

[Atgxtg]

4 hours ago, MJ Sadique said:

Where can I find this ... oh Greaaaaaaat Atgxtg ???

The conversion? Here on this thread. I'd love to fine tune it to better fit RQG instead of RQ2. Personally I think ENC could be tweaked a little, prices adjusted to better match RQ3, and the hit points of the hide and wooden shields should be upped at little.  If people want to, I could make it into a PDF for the downloads section. I could even add my conversion guidelines. 

 

The original RQ3 article was in Heroes Magazine Vol 2 Num 2, but I could post the RQ3 stats.  

[Atgxtg]

16 hours ago, Furry Fella said:

That's about what it works out to yes. There was a bit of rule of thumb looking at the comparative rolls to. Small shields are still a problem as they are significantly different in use and employment. It is actually the construction materials and techniques that mater more than size - but that's a separate topic and analysis.

Yeah,  small shields are used to  actively parry and block,  larger shields are relied on more for cover.

[Pentallion]

Oh for love of Eurmal you're all going about this backwards.

Midieval prices: irrelevant.

Bronze age prices: irrelevant.

Gloranthan prices in RQG:  CANON.

Therefore the only question is: why, IN GLORANTHA, are bows so expensive?  Not should they be.  Why ARE they?

[PhilHibbs]

10 minutes ago, Pentallion said:

Gloranthan prices in RQG:  CANON.

Therefore the only question is: why, IN GLORANTHA, are bows so expensive?  Not should they be.  Why ARE they?

Nonsense. We can ask the "should" question if we want. Believe it or not, there might be mistakes in the RQG rules!

[Pentallion]

On 8/31/2018 at 4:03 AM, PhilHibbs said:

Nonsense. We can ask the "should" question if we want. Believe it or not, there might be mistakes in the RQG rules!

I never said you couldn't ask, I said you should be asking the other question.

[PhilHibbs]

In RQ3, a bow cost 150 whereas a broadsword cost 175. In RQ2 and RQG it's 150 vs 50. I think this is a case where the prices got fixed in RQ3 and RQG has reverted to RQ2.

Edited September 1, 2018 by PhilHibbs

[Brootse]

On 8/25/2018 at 2:31 PM, Furry Fella said:

Back to topic.

A Master Bowyer producing a master work bow of the best materials of his best work in approx 1315 in England cost 3 nobles (a coin weighing 9 grams of gold) so 27 grams of gold

RQG has a standard composite bow by an ordinary crafter costing 150L or 7.5W or 30 grams of gold.

The Master bow was affordable for a professional military archer ( note NOT an officer).

An RQG Minorish Noble or basic Rune Master expects support of 5 Hides of RQ land with a "normal" base return of about 240L (80 for the hide he oversees and 40 each for those with tenants) less family living. So a year's surplus income for a petty noble won't buy a standard composite bow

The concepts are right the numbers are just wrong.

The nobles weren't minted yet in 1315, did you mean 1351?  They were worth 80d, so 3 nobles would have been equal to 80 days of work for a thatcher. And that's the most expensive longbow I've ever heard about.

Edited September 5, 2018 by Brootse

[Brootse]

On 9/1/2018 at 11:28 PM, PhilHibbs said:

In RQ3, a bow cost 150 whereas a broadsword cost 175. In RQ2 and RQG it's 150 vs 50. I think this is a case where the prices got fixed in RQ3 and RQG has reverted to RQ2.

In HeroQuest Glorantha the prices were more realistic than in RQG:

Broad sword 50
Praxian bow 40
Self bow 10
Throwing spear 15
Thrusting spear 20

I wonder what changed?

[PhilHibbs]

2 hours ago, Brootse said:

I wonder what changed?

They just lifted the RQ2 weapon stats including prices.

[Brootse]

58 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

They just lifted the RQ2 weapon stats including prices.

Yeah, looks like it. The armours are the same too.