Damage Modifier on Ranged Weapons

[RuneRiter]

I can't find the entry in the rule book(s) that shows which ranged weapons have the users damage modifier applied to them although I do remember being refered to the weapon table.

As a rule of thumb I would say that all thrown weapons do and that all others don't.

And my logic, rocks hurt more the harder they are thrown. Bows can only be drawn to the length of your arms (crossbows to the length of the stock) so higher strength may speed up the drawing process but the arrow will be fired at the same velocity each time. Lower strength is already penalised in the rules.

 

[RosenMcStern]

Unfortunately, this is not the case. In the basic rules, only blowguns and crossbows do not apply the damage modifier to the damage. Bows and slings do.

 

[duncan_disorderly]

I
And my logic, rocks hurt more the harder they are thrown. Bows can only be drawn to the length of your arms (crossbows to the length of the stock) so higher strength may speed up the drawing process but the arrow will be fired at the same velocity each time. Lower strength is already penalised in the rules.

You also have to consider the "pull" of the bow, which will effect the force with which the arrow is fired. A stronger person can fire a more powerful bow than a weaker person although they may both draw back the string the same length.

 

[Halfbat]

Interestingly, p5 states "melee or thrown weapon" and the weapon descriptions for blowguns and crossbows (p37+) state "A character's Damage Modifier is never applied when using..." Whilst that limit is not placed on bows, the modifier is not granted under "Damage Modifier" or in the combt rules - bows are not thrown weapons (well, except in dire circumstances :wink: ).

::shrugs::

It seems, then, you could add it or not, your preference/interpretation. It is worth bearing that bows do vary in power depending on the strength of construction (and whether the user can draw it), so it's not unreasonable to add some form of damage modifier for more powerful bows.

 

[RosenMcStern]

It is worth bearing that bows do vary in power depending on the strength of construction (and whether the user can draw it), so it's not unreasonable to add some form of damage modifier for more powerful bows.

The problem is that in the RAW you apply the character's damage modifier, not the bow's.

 

[RuneRiter]

It seems, then, you could add it or not, your preference/interpretation. It is worth bearing that bows do vary in power depending on the strength of construction (and whether the user can draw it), so it's not unreasonable to add some form of damage modifier for more powerful bows.

The Short bow does 1D8 damage at a range of 60m for a user of STR 9+ and DEX 11+.
The Nomad bow does 1D10 damage at a range of 120m for a user of STR 11+ and DEX 11+.
The Long bow does 2D8 damage at a range of 175m for a user of STR 13+ and DEX 11+.
etc.

 

[elgrin]

The rule I remember being used in previous versions was the (normal damage modifier divided by 2).
As I am at work I cannot consult my old rules to see if it was formal or House rule. As others, have said it was to indicate that the power of a missile weapon was a function of the energy (and hence damage) it transmits to the missile.
Aside: The bows of classical recovered from the Mary Rose are regarded as having been seriously more powerful than a similar bow available today.

 

[Halfbat]

Aside: The bows of classical recovered from the Mary Rose are regarded as having been seriously more powerful than a similar bow available today.

Yes. It's the difference between a warbow (longbow 2d8) at 150lbs+ pull and a target longbow (also damage 2d8?) at 40-60lbs pull.

The Short bow does 1D8 damage at a range of 60m for a user of STR 9+ and DEX 11+.
The Nomad bow does 1D10 damage at a range of 120m for a user of STR 11+ and DEX 11+.
The Long bow does 2D8 damage at a range of 175m for a user of STR 13+ and DEX 11+.
etc.

Not sure what you're saying here, RuneRiter, especially as there is no "etc." Are you saying that because the damage goes up like this there should not be any Damage bonus or are you saying there should be? :?

Whilst the damage in these stages (sort of) reflects the different potential construction and the weight of arrow it's worth bearing in mind that when the French copied the English longbowmen they didn't get the same style of shooting (maximise the power available), nor develop the strength (power/Damage), nor the training (accuracy and discipline) and were regularly outshot by the English longbowmen. The bows are also very different, too.

 

[are]

The rule I remember being used in previous versions was the (normal damage modifier divided by 2).

In 3rd edition bows and thrown weapons had half the damage modifier computed from 2*STR instead of STR+SIZ.

 

[RuneRiter]

The Short bow does 1D8 damage at a range of 60m for a user of STR 9+ and DEX 11+.
The Nomad bow does 1D10 damage at a range of 120m for a user of STR 11+ and DEX 11+.
The Long bow does 2D8 damage at a range of 175m for a user of STR 13+ and DEX 11+.
etc.

Not sure what you're saying here, RuneRiter, especially as there is no "etc." Are you saying that because the damage goes up like this there should not be any Damage bonus or are you saying there should be? :?

I'm saying that there should not be.

As to the etc, it refered to additional bows that the GM may want to add to his campaign. Remember the bow in "The Scorpion King" that only the Rock (or at least his character) was able to use. A GM may decide that the Scorpion King bow had a range of 250m with a damage of 4D8 for users with STR 18 and DEX 16 with an ruling that if the damage exceeds the target location hp and twice the AP (front + back) then any remaining damage continues into the next target (more a through-and-through than an impale). Who am I to argue?

Whilst the damage in these stages (sort of) reflects the different potential construction and the weight of arrow it's worth bearing in mind that when the French copied the English longbowmen they didn't get the same style of shooting (maximise the power available), nor develop the strength (power/Damage), nor the training (accuracy and discipline) and were regularly outshot by the English longbowmen. The bows are also very different, too.

I'm saying that the bow is responsible for the power and therefore the damage. Two users (One of STR 11 and one of STR 18 (both DEX 12)) using a Nomad bow will both get D10 damage because the power will depend on how far the string is pulled back (and the bow bent) which is dependant therefore on the length of the arrows and the users arm reach (whichever is less).

With the same two users using a Long bow the STR 18 bloke gets 2D8 damage whilst the STR 11 bloke gets -10% to hit and 2D8-2 damage (at least I think that was the rule in RQ1) as he can't draw the bow as effectively or as smoothly nor can he hold his bead on his target for as long.

 

[gamesmeister]

I'm saying that the bow is responsible for the power and therefore the damage. Two users (One of STR 11 and one of STR 18 (both DEX 12)) using a Nomad bow will both get D10 damage because the power will depend on how far the string is pulled back (and the bow bent) which is dependant therefore on the length of the arrows and the users arm reach (whichever is less).

No, this is wrong.

The power of a bow is mostly dependent on the tension within the bow itself - under normal circumstances, all bowmen will draw their bow roughly the same distance (i.e. to a point directly under their chin). Two nomad bows can have vastly different strengths, in the same way that two longbows of the middle ages could and did. Ideally you would have a bow that matched your strength, such that you achieved optimum power from the bow.

Therefore STR should have a very direct effect on the use of a bow. The D10 damage caused by a nomad bow is the damage caused by an 'average' bow, but this should then be modified by the strength of its user.

 

[Exubae]

So what your saying is an off the shelf bow shouldn't really have/use the damage bonus. However, a bow constructed to match your strength should?

Perhaps a bow should be give a maximum damage bonus that can be appied through the weapon. After all it comes to a point where no matter how strong you are you cant put any extra energy in to the bow (unless you get longer arrows)

 

[Rurik]

Interestingly, p5 states "melee or thrown weapon" and the weapon descriptions for blowguns and crossbows (p37+) state "A character's Damage Modifier is never applied when using..." Whilst that limit is not placed on bows, the modifier is not granted under "Damage Modifier" or in the combt rules - bows are not thrown weapons (well, except in dire circumstances :wink: ).

::shrugs::

The Players Guide (the errata sheet, not the upcoming book) clarify's that all missle weapons get a damage bonus unless specifically stated in the weapons description (i.e crossbows and blowguns).

That being said I kind of agree that a bow has a a maximum potential damage based on it's maximum pull. If a Giant tries to draw a shortbow to his full potential I think the bow would break long before reaching the potential to do 1d8+2d12 damage.

As bows are rated by minumum STR it seems as if the STR of the archer is already built in. An average size archer with the STR for a longbow is going to have a damage bonus, so will do at least 2d8+1d2. To me 2d8 damage is already pretty brutal, so I may houserule that damage bonus does not apply to bows in my games.

 

[Halfbat]

The Players Guide (the errata sheet, not the upcoming book) clarify's that all missle weapons get a damage bonus unless specifically stated in the weapons description (i.e crossbows and blowguns).

Good spot, Rurik. Tend to forget there wasn't just the combat clarification in it.

As bows are rated by minumum STR it seems as if the STR of the archer is already built in.

To some extent it's built in, but I think the basic design/build of the bow helps, too and is included. A short bow, unless it's built of radially different materials, can't have the same power as a recurved/nomad bow or long bow.

An average size archer with the STR for a longbow is going to have a damage bonus, so will do at least 2d8+1d2. To me 2d8 damage is already pretty brutal, so I may houserule that damage bonus does not apply to bows in my games.

Yeah, bothers me too: it's just too much. The halving rule mentioned above is still a good idea and I may go with that up to the power of the bow as the rest of what you said makes sense, too: a bow has a limit on the amount of power it can deliver depending on how it is built, so it should be the bow which limits the maximum damage bonus. That giant can still only do 2d8+1d2 with that longbow, irrespective of his +2d12 (or +1d12) bonus. :roll:

 

[GoingDown]

Not sure what you're saying here, RuneRiter, especially as there is no "etc."

In "Runequest Arms & Equipment" book, there is quite many other bows. So yes, there is "etc."

No word about applying damage modifier though.

 

[elgrin]

That being said I kind of agree that a bow has a a maximum potential damage based on it's maximum pull. If a Giant tries to draw a shortbow to his full potential I think the bow would break long before reaching the potential to do 1d8+2d12 damage.

I can see where Rurik is coming from, but my take would be that a Giant would have his Shortbow made of half a tree. The design would still be shortbow on a giant scale, and thus he could exert his full power during the pull. As it is the extra force exerted, due to the increased stiffness of a particular bow, which over the launch (pull Length) will directly give the kinetic energy at the point of impact. Thus I would argue that the construction of an individual bow of a type could significantly vary the power required to draw it back from another bow of the same type.
I do agree that the Longbow currently is a brutal weapon with the damage allocated, but then it was always regarded in that light during the eras when it was a primary combat weapon.
Just some lunchtime musings, but the upshot is probably that I will, as ever, revert to an old system and allow all missiles half of the normal damage bonus and see how it plays.

elgrin

 

[Trifletraxor]

I can see where Rurik is coming from, but my take would be that a Giant would have his Shortbow made of half a tree. The design would still be shortbow on a giant scale, and thus he could exert his full power during the pull.

My take is that the giant arrow shot from a treetrunk-bow (constructed like a shorbow) would deliver more damage than the normal arrow shot from a normal short bow. Thus, the increased damage would be from the arrow, not the damage modifier.

More bows with different damages depending on size and STR requirements would be a better way to go than applying damage modifier I think.

SGL.

SGL.

 

[elgrin]

My take is that the giant arrow shot from a treetrunk-bow (constructed like a shorbow) would deliver more damage than the normal arrow shot from a normal short bow. Thus, the increased damage would be from the arrow, not the damage modifier.

SGL.

Here we get into Physics, which is not only not a complete answer in Runequest, but which I have not touched since nineteen hundred and ££££££££. So if anyone can actually do this correctly, I wuld apprectiate it.
Kinetic energy, which is the damage-dealing part, is 1/2*m*v^2. So the velocity is more important that the mass. This then goes back to the force*time(Pull length) exerted on the arrow while it is accelerated. My gut feeling (as I cannot remember how to work it out) is that despite the greater mass, there would be greater increase in energy of the missile by speeding it up, i.e. increasing the pulling power of the bow, then by increasing the mass of the missile.

Of course this is mainly acedemic, as if a Giant gets you with an arrow you are deep in the mire anyway!
:lol:


elgrin

 

[Rurik]

Here we get into Physics, which is not only not a complete answer in Runequest, but which I have not touched since nineteen hundred and ££££££££. So if anyone can actually do this correctly, I wuld apprectiate it.
Kinetic energy, which is the damage-dealing part, is 1/2*m*v^2. So the velocity is more important that the mass. This then goes back to the force*time(Pull length) exerted on the arrow while it is accelerated. My gut feeling (as I cannot remember how to work it out) is that despite the greater mass, there would be greater increase in energy of the missile by speeding it up, i.e. increasing the pulling power of the bow, then by increasing the mass of the missile.

You have to be careful about equating kinetic energy, and specifically velocity, to damage. As you increase velocity you also increase the likelihood that the projectile will go right through the target. A smaller high velocity round may go right through a person, leaving a neat little hole. The important thing is that the body has not absorbed all the kinetic energy in the round. A larger slower projectile may have less energy, but if it does not completely go through the target ALL of its energy is absorbed by the target, and therefore it is likely to do more damage. Another factor is the the composition of the projectile. A teflon coated bullet will likely cut right through a person while a lead one will mushroom, again much more of it's energy will be absorbed by the target and far greater tissue damage will be done. Tumbling rounds, hollow point and hydro-shock rounds are all designed to maximize tissue damage. The velocity and total kinetic energy has much less to do with damage than how that energy is applied to the target. As I mentioned before, increasing velocity can actually be counter productive.

The same holds true for arrows. A broad head and armor piercing head will hit with the same energy, but the damage will be very different. Again, it has to do with how the energy is applied to the target.

Of course the old real estate adage stands true as well: Location, Location, Location. A half inch whole in the heart is bad ju-ju no matter at what velocity it was created. But that is really a side note.

But back to bows.

In my example with the Giant I was referring to a Giant using a normal 'Human' shortbow. In the RAW he would do 1d8+2d12 with a normal shortbow, and I still hold it would break before he could put that much energy into it (also, arrows are not THAT much longer than the maximum pull the bow is designed for, and he would have a hard time manipulating the tiny bow and arrow in his huge hands, but that is all beside the point). The tree trunk bow would surely have different stats than a human shortbow - especially minimum STR required.

Which brings me to my point that bow stats already take STR into account. Bigger more powerful bows require more STR and do more damage.

Short Bow, STR 9, 1d8
Nomad Bow, STR 11, 1d10
Long Bow, STR 13, 2d8
Dragonewt Bow, STR 17, 2d10+2 (from Monsters)

So it seems the bow stats include the STR required to use them. In the case of the Dragonewt bow an average Warrior Dragonewt has a 1d6 damage bonus and only needs to be slightly above average to have a 1d8 damage bonus on top of that. Why would they ever close to melee range?

So following the established pattern for bows a Giant Bow would look something like:

Really Big Short Bow: STR 30, 2d12+2 (and that seems low compared to the bows listed above) and the Giant still gets 2d12 in a damage bonus. Ouch.

The RAW actually work well as is for humans, but once you start getting into slightly bigger than human creatures (Dragonewts for example) they become unbalanced, and the bigger/stronger the shooter the more unbalanced they become.

I like capping the damage bonus at 1d2 or 1d4, saying that you can only push a Bow so far past it's 'normal' potential. Otherwise a Giant could still apply a 1d12 bonus to a bow that in reality would break.

 

[Deleriad]

I'm with Rurik on this. Give the same shortbow to a giant and a human and the giant can't get any more draw on the bow than the bow can take. It's highly unlikely that a giant can get any more draw than a strong human without breaking the bow. Similarly, give a human a shortbow designed for a giant (say 12 foot long) then the human is not going to be able to fire it no matter what.

Possibly one way to handle this would be state that a bow can have a damage modifier applied but no matter how big the damage modifier the bow can't do more damage than it's maximum rated damage. E.g. a Shortbow is 1d8 damage therefore if a giant fires it and rolls d8+2d12 then the maximum damage it can do is 8 points. Quite frankly I have problems imaging how a giant could pick up a shortbow and fire a standard arrow that's so lethal it can burst through rocks.

To be honest, given that you don't want too many exceptions to the rules I would stick with a relatively simple progression:
Melee weapons: full damage modifier
Thrown weapons/objects: 1/2 damage modifier
Projectile weapons: no damage modifier.

There are some quirks- e.g. very weak people are less hampered by low strength when throwing things than when hitting things. I personally use a slightly crunchier STR and DEX requirement for weapons in RQ:
STR: each point of STR below minimum is -5% and -1 damage (minimum of 0)
DEX: each point of DEX below minimum is -5% and -1 SR.
This makes it essentially impossible to wield something with a STR requirement 10 points more than your STR. I also apply this to missile weapons; too low a STR and you simply can't get enough draw on the weapon. Once you can get enough draw then the randomness of the damage simulates your draw and luck in what you hit with a specific shot.