I am working on my game and was woundering if what does the damage on a bow & arrow?All my books right it off as the bow does 1d6 or 1d8.What I am trying to figure out is if some one used a shark tooth for an arrow head and would that have any factor in it?I mean bone weapons do less damage and more of a chance to break where as copper or iron doesn't.So what I am trying work out is what does what damage.Bone arrows,wood arrows,bronze tipped arrows,copper tiped arrows,iron tipped arrows and steel tipped arrows.?????????
question about bows
- Thread starter Aelric
- Start date
ricardo440
Mongoose
D20 isn't that specific (thank god) but there was a suggestion earlier.
for each AGE you weapon is outdated by. i.e. you using bronze age stuff in a Iron age fight. you deduct one from the damage of the weapon.
for each AGE you weapon is outdated by. i.e. you using bronze age stuff in a Iron age fight. you deduct one from the damage of the weapon.
Yogah of Yag
Mongoose
The issue is the force generated by the tension of the string and the bow, in other words the poundage of the bow (whether a Str mod is applied makes a big difference, too). It don't think the nature of the arrowhead is quite as much of an issue, IMHO.
However, archaeologists have found what are called 'transverse arrowheads' which are somewhat crescent-shaped, not pointed, and they feel these transverse heads are meant to rip open the flesh, causing more rapid exsanguination. This would mean that a deer, for example, would bleed to death faster, and not run away quite as far as if it had been struck with the traditional type of point. In game terms, I would assign a wider crit range to such heads.
However, archaeologists have found what are called 'transverse arrowheads' which are somewhat crescent-shaped, not pointed, and they feel these transverse heads are meant to rip open the flesh, causing more rapid exsanguination. This would mean that a deer, for example, would bleed to death faster, and not run away quite as far as if it had been struck with the traditional type of point. In game terms, I would assign a wider crit range to such heads.
Mark Dunder
Mongoose
Gosh, you do have a big brain in that elephantine head of yours. I found all that very interesting, and using sanquine like that has got to put the word on the top of "how to bring about a confused look on my players" list.
Thanks again. This forum would not be half as interesting without you.
Mark Dunder
Mongoose
I remember the good old days when arrows did 1d4 damage. I always felt the arrow should do a lot more damage. Even 1d6 and 1d8 seems low considering how deadly the arrow could be against non-armored foes. And considering armor, I think 1d10 isn't gonna overbalance the act. Most heavily armored foes could shrug off arrow fire.
Maybe you could just make up a list of damage according to the material and point type.
Practice point -1d4
Shark teeth - 1d4
Flint - 1d6
Hunting iron point -1d6
Standard steel point - 1d8 (as is in the game, I guess)
Bodkin steel point -1d10
And any other point you come up with. Could have a + or - point extra also if you want.
Remember, not all arrows are made for quality either. You might tell the player "after" they shoot, that the arrows are -2 damage due to poor quality.
Maybe you could just make up a list of damage according to the material and point type.
Practice point -1d4
Shark teeth - 1d4
Flint - 1d6
Hunting iron point -1d6
Standard steel point - 1d8 (as is in the game, I guess)
Bodkin steel point -1d10
And any other point you come up with. Could have a + or - point extra also if you want.
Remember, not all arrows are made for quality either. You might tell the player "after" they shoot, that the arrows are -2 damage due to poor quality.
Yogah of Yag
Mongoose
dunderm said:
Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha...
[*snort*]
Hmmm.
Thanks.
In my homebrew system, I apply not only range penalties to bows, but range bonuses (to damage and AP) if the archer is VERY CLOSE to the target.
For example:
Hyrkanian bow (incr 100 ft)
<25 ft.____________________25 ft.-49 ft._____________50 ft.-99 ft_____________100 ft-199 ft.
+3 to DAM & AP...........................+2 to DAM & AP..............+1 to DAM & AP................no bonus to DAM & AP
Mark Dunder
Mongoose
You've played the game far too long now Yaggy (I can call you Yaggy now?) to have thought up all that for your bow. You need to get out and find some less ripe peanuts.
All this talk about bows made me think about the crossbows in Conan as well. Crossbows are much more powerfull than a bow, yet they aren't so good in Conan (there is a reason they where forbidden to use by the pope in the dark ages).
A crossbow does 2d6 and an arbalest does 2d8. A bow can add STR-mod to it's damage, making them very good, especially when you start to fire several arrows each round.
What I will allow is to add STRx1.5 to a crossbows damage and AP, since you use both hands to cock it and it takes a full round to do it. Now, an arbalest takes three rounds and you use a cranking device, so I will add STRx2 to that damage and AP. I will also use the rules for STR-mod bows when you calculate the price for a crossbow/arbalest (flat STR-mod, not x1.5 or x2).
If a character has a lower STR-mod than the crossbows/arbalests STR-rating, then the character can't reload it, but they can shot with it if a character that is strong enough has loaded it.
What do you guys think of the above rules, any input or wise comments?
Oh, one more thing, I add 10ft to a bows Range for each STR-bonus, since it's a stronger bow and should be able to propel the arrow a longer distance.
A crossbow does 2d6 and an arbalest does 2d8. A bow can add STR-mod to it's damage, making them very good, especially when you start to fire several arrows each round.
What I will allow is to add STRx1.5 to a crossbows damage and AP, since you use both hands to cock it and it takes a full round to do it. Now, an arbalest takes three rounds and you use a cranking device, so I will add STRx2 to that damage and AP. I will also use the rules for STR-mod bows when you calculate the price for a crossbow/arbalest (flat STR-mod, not x1.5 or x2).
If a character has a lower STR-mod than the crossbows/arbalests STR-rating, then the character can't reload it, but they can shot with it if a character that is strong enough has loaded it.
What do you guys think of the above rules, any input or wise comments?
Oh, one more thing, I add 10ft to a bows Range for each STR-bonus, since it's a stronger bow and should be able to propel the arrow a longer distance.
Tegman said:
Arguable ;o)
A lot of people belive that the Welsh Longbow had a lot more power than a crossbow. (I have seem scientific evidence "proving" it both ways, but most of it is based on supersision, fact is we know very little about medieval Archery.)
The main Advatage of a Crossbow over a Bow however is undoubtatly that the Crossbow is much, much easier to use.
It all depends on the pound of the bow/crossbow and crossbows could, and can, have a very high pound rating since you can use devices to load them.
I have some friends that shoot, and build, medieval bows, and they say it takes a long time to master the bow, compared to the crossbow. They also say that the crossbow is more powerful than the bow.
There are always arguments, but I for one think that crossbows and arbalest should also have a STR-mod since a bow can do 1d12+5 in damage, or even more, if the character is stronger, and that's unbalanced, especially when an archer can shot several arrows per round.
I just don't understand why the constructors made bows the ultimate ranged weapon, high damage and high rate of fire. I mean, it's no use using crossbows since their fire rate i slow and the damage they do does not compensate for the slow fire rate.
Crossbows are good to use as a one-shot weapon, then drop and close for the melee, since you can load it and walk around with it loaded for some time.
I might up the damage a bit on crossbows in my game, more than just the STR-mod, they do take some time to load, especially the arbalest, I'll have to do some counting and see how it turns out, do some playtesting etc.
I have some friends that shoot, and build, medieval bows, and they say it takes a long time to master the bow, compared to the crossbow. They also say that the crossbow is more powerful than the bow.
There are always arguments, but I for one think that crossbows and arbalest should also have a STR-mod since a bow can do 1d12+5 in damage, or even more, if the character is stronger, and that's unbalanced, especially when an archer can shot several arrows per round.
I just don't understand why the constructors made bows the ultimate ranged weapon, high damage and high rate of fire. I mean, it's no use using crossbows since their fire rate i slow and the damage they do does not compensate for the slow fire rate.
Crossbows are good to use as a one-shot weapon, then drop and close for the melee, since you can load it and walk around with it loaded for some time.
I might up the damage a bit on crossbows in my game, more than just the STR-mod, they do take some time to load, especially the arbalest, I'll have to do some counting and see how it turns out, do some playtesting etc.
ricardo440
Mongoose
I like the idea of Str bonus to X-bows.
You can say you can't load them as quickly if you don't have the strength.
As for the weapons debate:
Bows are more powerful, more accurate and have faster RoF than cross bows.
The difference is the amount of time it takes to train someone to use them.
Give a person a cross bow and you can train 20 guys to be shooting reasonably profficiently in a single day.
Give someone a bow and it will take them years to master.
Your bows have to be more closely matched to your soldier as well, x-bows are one size fits all. So they can be mass produced.
Throughout history the "great archers" have always been cultures that use the bow as part of daily life, and train with it constantly. They will always outmatch any x-bow troops. However If you recruit 300 men who have never used any bows and want them shooting in a month then X-bows are the way to go.
You can say you can't load them as quickly if you don't have the strength.
As for the weapons debate:
Bows are more powerful, more accurate and have faster RoF than cross bows.
The difference is the amount of time it takes to train someone to use them.
Give a person a cross bow and you can train 20 guys to be shooting reasonably profficiently in a single day.
Give someone a bow and it will take them years to master.
Your bows have to be more closely matched to your soldier as well, x-bows are one size fits all. So they can be mass produced.
Throughout history the "great archers" have always been cultures that use the bow as part of daily life, and train with it constantly. They will always outmatch any x-bow troops. However If you recruit 300 men who have never used any bows and want them shooting in a month then X-bows are the way to go.
That part, that it takes longer to master a bow has made me think about skipping bows as a proficiency for all classes and make it a single feat: Proficiency with bows.
If anyone want to be able to use a bow without -4 then they will have to take that feat, even soldiers (and barbarians too, even if they have versatility, I don't think it should make them good at using bows, melee weapons yes, but not bows). Bossonians and Hyrkanians are of course excepted.
Doing that would make the crossbow more used and archers would be more higly regarded, I think.
Just a thought that I had.
If anyone want to be able to use a bow without -4 then they will have to take that feat, even soldiers (and barbarians too, even if they have versatility, I don't think it should make them good at using bows, melee weapons yes, but not bows). Bossonians and Hyrkanians are of course excepted.
Doing that would make the crossbow more used and archers would be more higly regarded, I think.
Just a thought that I had.
Mark Dunder
Mongoose
The accuracy of bows at longer ranges may have a lot to do with proficiency. Crossbows are somewhat designed to shoot down the barrel, so to speak. Crossbows are more powerful and give more damage, but only a short range, I would think. Afterall, gravity would be the only factor in damage at maximum range, and would probably not penetrate heavy armor. So you might want to give bonuses to crossbows at short and medium range, but at maximum range or even long range, you might drop bonuses for all arrows and bolts. Also, arrows may have better flight patterns at long range, the bolt may not do as well at long distance. I don't know. But it's a possibility.
geordiekimbo
Mongoose
Bows hve a better range purely because of ballistics. A crossbow fires its bolts in a flat trajectory whereas a bow fires its arrows in a greater arc.
In old style D and D I remember I changed bow and crossbow damage to d10 and 2d6 respectively and it worked very well.
In Conan my shemite soldier character has invented bodkin arrows for use against armour. The pentration is increased by 2 with the same damage. They take slightly longer to make and cost a little more due to this. He makes some up when he has access to a forge
In old style D and D I remember I changed bow and crossbow damage to d10 and 2d6 respectively and it worked very well.
In Conan my shemite soldier character has invented bodkin arrows for use against armour. The pentration is increased by 2 with the same damage. They take slightly longer to make and cost a little more due to this. He makes some up when he has access to a forge
Raven Blackwell
Mongoose
Tegman said:
I assume that since a Hunting Bow is a Simple Weapon that you can use it without penalty without this Feat?
Mark Dunder
Mongoose
I would argue that a Hunting Bow that can kill an Elk, would be lethal enough to kill a man. The skill needed to hunt is pretty much the same as that needed to hunt a man. Simple bows, like the longbow made of yew, were used as much for hunting, I would think, as their famous use in warfare. The Native Americans Indians, used their bows both for hunting and warfare. Most of their bows were fairly simple in construction, unless you're a modern man trying to make one. 
Anyway, I think many crossbows may not need a proficiency to use.
Anyway, I think many crossbows may not need a proficiency to use.
Raven Blackwell said:
I would put all bows under the same feat, but I wont do that now, I talked it all through with my group and they liked the idea of increasing the damage for crossbows.
I'm currently running The Elephant Tower and the crossbow/arbalest will see some action there so we'll be able to playtest it. Next gaming session will begin with the attack on the Stygian caravan so we'll see how that one goes.
Stats on crossbows in my campaign
Crossbow Dam: 2d8+2xSTR-mod AP: As book + 2xSTR-mod
Arbalest Dam: 2d10+2xSTR-mod AP: As book + 2xSTR-mod
As you can see, they went up pretty much and they can now punch through armor easily, they still have a low DPS, but they can easily kill someone right now, especially the arbalest.
