Some Proficiency questions

Trodax

Mongoose
I have two questions about weapon proficiencies (well #1 isn't really a question, but rather a proposed houserule):

1) Bow Proficiencies
I have a problem with how the proficiencies for exotic bows (Hyrkanian/Shemite/Stygian/Bossonian) work. In my last game, one of the players played an archery-specialized Bossonian soldier. When he had his Bossonian longbow, he kicked a lot of ass, but when he was without it, not so much. He even got his hands on a Stygian longbow at one point, but couldn't really use it. He really didn't feel like a great archer at all; just a Bossonian longbow specialist, which he thought was a bit uncool. What we didn't like was this: good archers in Conan are always very specialized and committed to one type of bow, usually based on their race. Part of the problem here is that the hunting bow is so very weak that its not really an option if you want to be an effective archer, you basically have to stick to your racial weapon.

So, to my proposed houserule: How do you think it would work to have only one feat (Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Compound bow) that covered all of the Hyrkanian, Shemite, Stygian and Bossonian bows? These races would then gain this feat for free, so a Bossonian, for example, would be proficient with all bows, not just the Bossonian one. Any problems with that houserule?

2) Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Greatsword
What is the basis in the REH tales for the greatsword being a Hyborian-specific weapon (IOW, why do Hyborians gain Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Greatsword for free)?
IIRC, the Nemedian Adventurers wielded greatswords, but is there anything other than that?
 
I'd recommend you split the bows according to size rather than just one proficiency.

Hyrkanian and Shemite bows are compound recurved short bows for use while mounted.
Stygian and Bossonian bows are compound straight long bows for use on foot and cannot be used mounted.

Heck, the only other long bow that could be used at the time would be the Khitani great bows, but those are long bows used from siting, kneeling or mounted positions.
 
As far as the bows proficiencies go, I would say keep them as they are in the rules. The construction and (perhaps more importantly) the cultural "style" of these bows is unique, reinforcing the nature of REH's Hyboria (i.e. stereotypes are not only common, but often factual).

The real issue is "does this player always have access to his chosen weapon?" If he does, it is a non-issue. Now, he can always lose his bow, have it sundered by an opponent, or just not have it at the start of the adventure (got to love the GM's perogative rule about equipment) but if this is happening all the time...well, as the GM you have complete control over that. I've had a player run a Bossonian archer before and he had enough ranks in Craft (bowmaking) that I ruled he could reasonably start with a Bossonian longbow for every adventure unless the adventue setup specifically left the PCs weaponless (or without missile weapons).

I say the solution is to let the PC have his bow whenever the story setup doesn't say otherwise.
 
I kinda agree with the Bow Proficiencies NOT being soooo specific. I haven't really run into a problem with it yet but it does seem a little strange.

I don't know that much about bows, but it seems reasonable that a master archer could pick up a bow and learn to be an expert with it within a week or two. Expecting a PC to spend Feats on every bow-type is not what I consider a realistic option.
 
Clansman said:
I say the solution is to let the PC have his bow whenever the story setup doesn't say otherwise.
This is true of course. However, I really like to run my games with the "you start out in a dungeon with only a loincloth"-approach. Conan always seemed to have equipment based on the surrounding setting, and I like the feel of that. Having a character always equipped with his favourite bow just doesn't sit right with me. Of course, running a game like this also means that an archer-character will sometimes be without any type of bow, which will hurt. However, that's less of a problem as finding some sort of bow could always be worked in by a nice GM (while finding a Bossonian longbow outside of Aquilonia more than once doesn't feel plausible).

urdinaran said:
I don't know that much about bows, but it seems reasonable that a master archer could pick up a bow and learn to be an expert with it within a week or two.
Yeah, maybe I should say that I now absolutely nothing about bows. Perhaps the techniques of using a longbow and a shorter recurved bow are fundamentally different. However, what I'm looking for is not realism, but rather means to make cool characters and staying true to the REH spirit.

urdinaran said:
Expecting a PC to spend Feats on every bow-type is not what I consider a realistic option.
Exactly. Its probably reasonable that using a new type of bow would take some getting used to (like practising for week or so). Its just that, in-game, spending a feat is a little too costly for my taste.
 
For that ability of using the environment pictured in REH conan stories, babarians get versability...
More civilized characters work in a diferent way... and i like it that way...
A soldier in conan has his favored weapon as a must... if the does not have it, his weapon focus, weapon spec, greater Wf, and Greater Weapon Spec are uselless...


I do find that using a bow that you are not proficient with should grant the -4 to attack roll...
But has GMs we can always define what happens... you can make a house rule were if you have exotic proficiency in one type of bow... you get -2 instead of -4 on exoctic bows, or a + 2 on hunting bow...
Or give him the feat for free if he uses that bow often...

But giving a "you master all bows" feat doesn´t sound very good to me since it takes years to master a bow type... and each of those bows are quite diferent...
 
I've read a tiny bit about English longbowmen, and Central Asian mounted archers and the skills required to use each bow were very specialised, and required years of training from an early age to master. There should be a penalty for those specialised archers to use a more mundane bow IMHO.

FWIW I think that a non-specialised bowman picking up a composite recurved bow or a longbow should have next to no chance of hitting their target.
 
ad 1.: I'd stay with the restricting rule, because it seems realistic.
Plus, the Bossonian could craft a new bow, if he ever loses his old: background skill Craft (bowyer).

ad 2.: I have reread almost all Conan-stories over the last few weeks and never found anything about a Hyborian affinity to greatswords...
 
Thanks to all for the input. I'll think some more about whether houseruling the bow stuff or not; perhaps I will leave it as-is after all.

So nothing really solid on the Hyborian-Greatsword affiliation then?
 
Trodax said:
Thanks to all for the input. I'll think some more about whether houseruling the bow stuff or not; perhaps I will leave it as-is after all.

If your leaving it as is, maybe point out that he can take the first level of barbarian to half the penalty.
 
jadrax said:
If your leaving it as is, maybe point out that he can take the first level of barbarian to half the penalty.
Yeah, thats always an option. However, I don't really think multiclassing into barbarian would be a perfect fit for all characters built around the concept of 'archer'.

BTW, what about this middle-ground houserule:
If you have EWP for one bow, you only take a -2 penalty when using any other exotic bow (instead of -4).
If you have EWP for two bows, you take no penalty at all with any bow.

This means that Hyrkanians, Shemites, Stygians and Bossonians would only need to spend one feat to be 'master of all bows', while all other races would have to spend two feats.

Could that work?

(An almost similar way of doing that houserule would be to to make up a new feat (Bow Versatility?) that had 'EWP: Any bow' as a prerequisite and that let you use all bows at no penalty.)
 
These races get tons of bonuses with their particular bows because of the genre we're playing in. It's a pulp novel and meant to be stereotypical and grandiose and, in essence, racist. Races are supposed to excell at thier stuff and not at the stuff other races do. It isn't intended that people become "good archers" using all kinds of bows from all over the world. just the opposite.

Now if you really want to run it as if "a bow is a bow is a bow", then that's cool - you just have to delete racial bonuses from other racews as well. It's only fair.

If you just want bows to become more like swords and axes, what you might do is make all bows martial proficiencies, but this seems like aiding the curve too much. These are exotic weapons because so few races have mastered making them, and each race that has done so has fashioned then to fit thier racial needs (in theory. really it's all crap as far as real technology and anthropology goes, but that's why this is fantasy and not reality).

My ultimate point is that infusing too much reality can bog things down adn cause you to have to come up with too many lop-sided house rules to accomodate it. If they aren't happy with non-generic bows and being supreme masters of each racial bow so long as they stick to just that one kind...

...then maybe you guys need to be playing D&D. :wink:
 
Sutek said:
...then maybe you guys need to be playing D&D. :wink:
Now thats just mean. :cry:

No but really; what I'm trying to get away from is the D&D-ish style where characters always run around with their weapon of choice (without being really mean to certain characters). I dunno; maybe the thing I should do is to up the damage of the hunting bow a notch to make it not suck so hard. That would actually also solve the problem as I see it.
 
The very description of Shemite Bow from the Pocket Guide I have handy says "The Shemite Bow is very similar to the Hyrkanian Bow." If you really feel this is a problem, then I would change it to 2 proficiencies one for the Bossonian and Stygian bows, and one for the Shemite and Hyrkanian bows. It certainly won't break the game, and it might help foster some archery since PCs seem to lean toward swordsmen out of the expectation of combat frequently becoming a melee.
 
Trodax said:
Sutek said:
...then maybe you guys need to be playing D&D. :wink:
Now thats just mean. :cry:

maybe a little...lol

Trodax said:
No but really; what I'm trying to get away from is the D&D-ish style where characters always run around with their weapon of choice (without being really mean to certain characters). I dunno; maybe the thing I should do is to up the damage of the hunting bow a notch to make it not suck so hard. That would actually also solve the problem as I see it.

Well, look at a Hunting bow with al the right feats first. Then see how the damage is. You know: sneak attack, point blank shot, precise shot, ranged finesse, etc.

I don't think it's as terrible as you believe it to be.
 
Sutek said:
Well, look at a Hunting bow with al the right feats first. Then see how the damage is. You know: sneak attack, point blank shot, precise shot, ranged finesse, etc.

I don't think it's as terrible as you believe it to be.
I disagree, IME the hunting bow is quite sucky; 1d8 damage with no Str added (which also means that it has no useful AP whatsoever). Against unarmoured opponents I guess it's decent enough (1d8 damage versus 1d10+Str or 1d12+Str for the compound bows), but if your opponent straps on any type of armour it becomes almost useless (a leather jerkin gives a very good protection against the hunting bow).

In my last game that I mentioned, the Bossonian soldier that found himself without his Bossonian longbow very quickly got his hands on a hunting bow and started using it, but soon realised how crappy it was (this was against unarmoured and leather jerkin-clad opponents, IIRC). He eventually just chucked it and picked up a sword.

Now if you have a lot of sneak attack and manage to get a sneak in, the type of bow you wield isn't all that important, thats true. But the problem is that ranged sneak attacks happen very seldom. You basically have the opportunity to get one sneak in if you catch your opponent flat-footed at the start of combat and are within 30 feet, and thats it (since you can't flank or feint your opponent as you can in melee).

Oh, and Ranged Finesse (which actually could help the hunting bow with its armour penetrating problems) is a pretty useless feat as written.
 
But when hunting (A) the opponents aren't likely to be armored and (B) they are most likely within about 30 feet or so. That's why it's a "hunting bow" and not a "kill the Pict Border bow"....or whatever. (lol)

Now, your point about ranged sneak attacks not happening often...that's just wrong. My players live for that. Make a plan, set and ambush and kill the leader and biggest thug in pretty much the surprise round, then move in to finish the rest off in the chaos.

Plus, if you are hiding, you can shoot as your standard action and then hide again in round one with high enough initiative. Plus, all ranged attacks can catch enemies flat footed (either in a surprise round, in the first round with high initiative OR BOTH) because it cannot be blocked, only dodged. Therefore, since the opponent is denied Dodge, he is Flat Footed. The character with a high INIT and a set ambush can gain the attack in the surprise round and then another attack in the first regular round of combat before an opponent can even react. The Thief in our party killed a charging lion that way; damaged it in round one, but didnt' kill it outright, then rolled a crit in round two. Dead lion. Two shots using sneak attack.
 
The thief used move silently and hide to avoid being detected.

He shot the lion in a surprise round, doing sneak damage.

The lion did not die from that attack, so regular rounds begin.

The thief got a higher initiative roll than the lion, so got to attack again before the lion's actual turn, keeping it classified as flat footed.

Theif rolls and hits, getting a crit. This is enough damage to kill the lion.

As GM fiat, since a lion shot with an arrow would normally charge, I role played it as if he'd kill the lion in mid-charge.

The point is that the sneak attach with a bow works.
 
Sutek said:
Now, your point about ranged sneak attacks not happening often...that's just wrong. My players live for that. Make a plan, set and ambush and kill the leader and biggest thug in pretty much the surprise round, then move in to finish the rest off in the chaos.
OK, ambushes with ranged sneak attacks can work, that's true.
Still, an ambush with bows within 30 feet is quite close, as you will often be well within striking range when your opponents retaliate (unless you set the ambush in a place where you can't be charged, of course).
And when your opponents aren't flat-footed anymore, you'll be doing virtually no damage with your hunting bow if they have any type of armour, as mentioned above.

Anyway, I really don't want to argue this forever. My point with the sneak attack stuff is this:
Sneak attacking with a melee weapon is something you can build a combat-strategy around, because you can use it in several ways: ambushes, high initiative so you catch opponents flat-footed, moving into flanking positions and feinting.
Sneak attacking with a ranged weapon is much, much more restricted; there will be many more situations when you won't be able to use it. If I were to build a character that was good at archery, I'd definitely not go for sneak attack (being a soldier with lots of feats seems better than a thief to me).
 
Back
Top