PDA

View Full Version : A Tidbit of Archery Love [Item PEACH]



Bandededed
2009-01-29, 12:55 AM
Ignoring the fact that this representation is probably about as correct as the planet being flat [welcome to D&D, imagination is your friend!], I thought that Archery could use a little extra love, from me, because I can.

The Compound Bow

Compound bows are a recent discovery for most of the [generic D&D world]. A few halfling tinkerers, with the asistance of gnomes and at least one very old human, discovered a way to multiply the force generated by a bow without increasing the difficulty of the pull - and no, not magic. They did it all, with science!

A compound acts like a composite bow in that it has a strength rating. All rules relating to strength scores applying to composite bows apply to compound bows. Each +1 of strength bonus costs an additional 150 GP, but there is a maximum of a +5 rating. A bow of greater strength than that is too rigid, and snaps when pulled.

The real difference between the Comp. Bow is that the Comp. Bow has a strength multiplier. This multiplier, as its name suggests, increases the amount of damage a character with an above average strength score can put out. Each +1 of strength multiplier costs an adittional 500 GP, and has a maximum of x3.

The basic Comp. Bow has a strength bonus of +0, a strength multiplier of x1, and costs 700 GP

The Compound Bow:
{table=head]Cost | Str bonus | Str multiplier | Total damage | range | weight
700 | +0 | x1 | 1d8 | 100 | 5
1000 | +2 | x1 | 1d8+2 | 100 | 5
1500 | +2 | x2 | 1d8+4 | 100 | 5[/table]

These are just a few examples, many other combinations are possible.

So... Hows it look?

Ashtagon
2009-01-29, 08:05 AM
I don't think you are modelling how composite bows work very well.

Even an advanced compound bow is usable by anyone who isn't an utter wimp. Compound bows are typically easier to draw than a standard modern recurve bow, in fact. There really isn't such a thing as a compound bow that requires, or even benefits from, a high Strength score.

One aspect of a compound bow is that it requires almost no strength to hold the bow drawn ready to fire once you have drawn it. An ordinary person could quite easily hold the bow ready to fire for half an hour without effort (or at least, no more effort than if he were holding that pose without actually having anything in his hands). This aspect isn't modelled in D&D unfortunately.

I'd make compound bows identical to composite bows, except the full Strength bonus of the bow is applied regardless of whether or not the wielder actually has the appropriate Strength score, and there is no penalty for not having a Strength bonus equal to or greater than that of the bow itself.

For price, take the price of the same-Strength composite bow, then multiply it by the Strength bonus. Then multiply it by the Strength bonus a second time. Exception: +1 compound bows should cost twice as much as +1 composite bows.

It's not a common tactic, but I'd also let anyone with such a bow hold an arrow nocked ready to fire for as long as he likes (up to half an hour).

Draz74
2009-01-29, 11:54 AM
Also, I think multiplying Strength bonuses to damage is immediately a dangerous mechanic. Could definitely see some optimizers abusing that!

Lorien077
2009-01-30, 12:55 AM
I can see where you were going with the strength bonuses (assuming this was represented as pull weight the person with an equivalent STR bonus can pull) but I second removing the multiplier.

Bandededed
2009-01-30, 06:08 PM
I don't think you are modelling how composite bows work very well.

Edit: I assume you mean "compound" bows, as the game already defines composite bows.

Well, you are free to think that. To be perfectly fair, there wasn't as much difference between a standard bow and a composite bow as D&D puts there, either, meaning that composite bows are modeled differently as well.


Even an advanced compound bow is usable by anyone who isn't an utter wimp. Compound bows are typically easier to draw than a standard modern recurve bow, in fact. There really isn't such a thing as a compound bow that requires, or even benefits from, a high Strength score.

This is because of the pulley system modern compound bows use - which I represent with multipliers. If you were to remove the pulleys, the bow would be almost impossible to draw. Hence, were you able to draw a stronger bow, you could build a compound bow that is hard for weaker people to draw, and increase the force from the arrow considerably.

Draz and Lorien: Your comments made me go back and check, and you're right! I, for some unknown reason, thought that there was some sort of limit on how high you could make the strength score on a composite bow, other than how many hits of XX GP one could afford, so this is open to potential abuse.

I guess a barbarian with 34 strength (reasonable, if I remember correctly), could do... 1d8+36 per hit, or 40.5 average. For [500 bow + 1800 str + 1000 x3 = 3900 GP] Yikes.

Rather than take away the multiplier, I would rather put some sort of limit on how high the str bonus can reasonably be, before the bow simply shatters under the immense stress [/fluff].

{table=head]Max str bonus | Avg. damage (x3)
+5|19.5
+6|22.5
+7|25.5
+8|28.5
+9|31.5
+10|35.5[/table]

Hmm... any thoughts as to which one? I'm also going to find a higher cost for the multiplier

Ashtagon
2009-01-31, 04:43 AM
Edit: I assume you mean "compound" bows, as the game already defines composite bows.


Yes, proofreading err9or. I think that's the only place I made that mistake.



Well, you are free to think that. To be perfectly fair, there wasn't as much difference between a standard bow and a composite bow as D&D puts there, either, meaning that composite bows are modelled differently as well.


I'm not thrilled over the way composite bows are modelled either.

Really, all bows, simple, recurve, compound, or composite, should have fixed damage ratings (ie. no damage bonus from high Strength) and minimum Strength scores to use proficiently.



This is because of the pulley system modern compound bows use - which I represent with multipliers. If you were to remove the pulleys, the bow would be almost impossible to draw. Hence, were you able to draw a stronger bow, you could build a compound bow that is hard for weaker people to draw, and increase the force from the arrow considerably.


In D&D terms, I am quite confident that the real-life me would have absolutely no Strength bonus whatsoever, and quite possibly a Strength penalty. A simple longbow is beyond me, and my comfortable draw weight with a recurve bow is about 30 lb. Yet when I picked up up a compound bow, the draw weight felt like absolutely nothing - about equivalent to picking up a heavy coat. And the arrow went almost right through the straw boss we used as backing for our targets - much farther than they usually do with my recurve bow.

But the way you model it, it would be no better in my hands than a regular recurve bow.

Under my conceptual idea for compound bows, compound bows would have a pathetically low minimum Strength to use proficiently, and unusually high range and damage ratings.

The maximum effective Strength rating for your bows could be limited by the Craft DC check.

Bandededed
2009-01-31, 04:48 PM
In D&D terms, I am quite confident that the real-life me would have absolutely no Strength bonus whatsoever, and quite possibly a Strength penalty. A simple longbow is beyond me, and my comfortable draw weight with a recurve bow is about 30 lb. Yet when I picked up up a compound bow, the draw weight felt like absolutely nothing - about equivalent to picking up a heavy coat. And the arrow went almost right through the straw boss we used as backing for our targets - much farther than they usually do with my recurve bow.

But the way you model it, it would be no better in my hands than a regular recurve bow.

Well, really, strength scores are a bad way to represent damage in general. I like the way GURPS does it better.


Under my conceptual idea for compound bows, compound bows would have a pathetically low minimum Strength to use proficiently, and unusually high range and damage ratings.

I think perhaps we are thinking about the same thing different ways. Lets say you have a 60 pound bow. The way I think you're envisioning it, throw on the compound components and the pull weight (if I remember 6th grade science) would be around 15 pounds. The way I'm thinking about it, I would make a 240 pound bow, put the pulleys on it, and still have a pull strength of 60, but an arrow would have four times the force applied to it.
Now we just have to wait for this to be wrong :-)

The maximum effective Strength rating for your bows could be limited by the Craft DC check.

That's not a bad idea, but then I think I'd feel bad because skills are so open to abuse. I think the cap should be +5, because that represents a more and more rigid bow, and anything higher than that is too rigid, and snaps when pulled.

Ashtagon
2009-02-01, 04:52 AM
ok, my system...

First some definitions:

short bow - the total length of the arms, tip to tip, when strung, is about 3-4 feet. These can be used from horseback or while kneeling, but not while prone.

long bow - the total length of the arms, tip to tip, when strung, is about 5-6 feet. These can only be used while standing.

simple (or straight) bow - a straight, or nearly so, stick, with a string attached. The curve of the bow would be in the same direction whether strung or unstrung. Historical longbows were nearly all simple bows.

recurve (or reflex) bow - This is distinguished from simple bows by the fact that the curve on the staff is in the opposite direction when it is strung, compared to when it is not strung. Modern bows used in tournaments are typically recurve bows (and composite).

composite bows - the staff of the bow is made up of multiple materials layered together to improve the effective power of the bow. Historically, this includes the bows used by Mongol raiders.

compound bows - these use a system of pulleys to multiply the effective power of the bow. They are a modern invention, invented in 1966.

The above are real-world definitions (as I understand them, anyway). IN game terms...

short bow - always recurve, possibly composite. When strung, has a C-shape.

long bow - always straight, possibly composite.

composite bows - these are just short or long bows that have a higher minimum Strength to use.

compound bows - in terms of physical size and overall shape, similar to short bows.

statblocks...

All: crit x3, piercing damage, Weapon Proficiency (bows) to use.

weapon - cost - damage - range - weight - Min Strength

short bow - 30 gp - 1d6 - 60 ft - 2 lb - 8
short bow - 60 gp - 1d8 - 70 ft - 2 lb - 12
short bow - 120 gp - 2d6 - 80 ft - 2 lb - 16
short bow - 270 gp - 3d6 - 90 ft - 2 lb - 20

long bow - 75 gp - 1d8 - 100 ft - 3 lb - 12
long bow - 150 gp - 2d6 - 110 ft - 3 lb - 16
long bow - 300 gp - 3d6 - 120 ft - 3 lb - 20
long bow - 675 gp - 4d6 - 130 ft - 3 lb - 24

compound bow - 100 gp - 1d8 - 100 ft - 4 lb - 8
compound bow - 200 gp - 2d6 - 110 ft - 4 lb - 10
compound bow - 400 gp - 3d6 - 120 ft - 4 lb - 12
compound bow - 900 gp - 4d6 - 130 ft - 4 lb - 14

(Although the mathematical progression is fairly obvious, these probably should not be extended indefinitely, because that leads to improbable tensile strengths for the materials that are likely to be available).

Any "advanced" version of the short/long bows should be considered to be a composite bow, in terms of material construction. No bow grants a Strength bonus to attack or damage rolls. Dexterity bonuses apply to attack rolls. If you do not have the required Strength score, you are always considered non-proficient with the weapon, you may not apply any Dexterity bonus to your attack roll, and the weapon's range and damage characteristics are equivalent to the basic (lowest Strength requirement) version of the weapon.

Note that a 12-Strength character could not take a 16-Strength short bow and using the 12-Strength short bow characteristics. The physics of bows means that unless they are drawn fully, their accuracy suffers badly, as you can't adopt the usual stance required. the character in this example would suffer all the non-proficiency penalties, and treat the range and damage of his weapon as if it were the basic (8-Strength) short bow model.

Note that compound bows are far better than either short or long bows. There is no reasonable way to balance them in game terms. Although I have made them more expensive, that is trivial once past 3rd level or so. It's not reasonable to balance them by requiring an extra feat either, as they are no harder to use (in technique terms) than any other bow.