Bow damage

[Eisenmann]

Fizz wrote:
I'm inclined to agree that the arrow did not lead to the end of armor. The proper use of bows could be decisive factors (ie, longbows at Crecy and Agincourt). But certainly heavy armor lasted for hundreds of years afterwards. Heavy plate armors didn't start going out of style until firearms became common. And even then, armor still stuck around, just in lighter more mobile forms.

Exactly right. It was the firearm that put an end to personal metal armor on the battlefield.

Quote:
Ever see someone swing a sword at a side of beef? Compare that to a single arrow wound. So i think damage levels or arrows in relation to other weapons are fine. I just have issues with range/damage ratios of said arrows.
-Fizz

I have issues as well. Mine include the ratio with other weapons but I can gloss that over for simplicity sake. My "fix" would be to come up with a "critical" hit system based on the amount of damage done in a single "blow" and allow characters that use bows in-game actually get to use them effectively, ie at range that is out of reach of a closing fighter. All too often battles are set up too generically. Archers seem to be shooting from 15 feet and get ganked the next round.

[Matthew]

Robocoastie wrote:
we bow to your greatness and superior intellect Matthew and desire to continue nitpicking at parts which wasn't even the point relevant to the damn thread.

I bow to your greatness "ooo ahhh" good grief. Does your ego feel better now? I don't care if I'm wrong at all because what I meant and thought was obvious was the progression of projectile weapons.

I can't help but get personal here because I see a lot of myself in you. The college classes I take currently have made me be far too picky toward people because in class we have to prove by the letter of the law (rather than the good natured intentions of people) every damn thing we say. It sucks sometimes because we have to completely ignore our own knowledge of topics and experience and instead constantly refer to muckity mucks who usually have never actually gotten their hands dirty in the topic they have written about even. For example I live and work with farmers in a farming community and grew up on a farm. But when writing about farming I have to pretend I'm an idiot in need of quoting others who've never farmed a day in their life! This college mindset over the last year has made me a very irritable person to be around sometimes and its only recently that I realized that and have been trying to remove that nitpicking hat when I'm away from the classroom. Might I suggest you try the same or at least try a different tact because rather than persueing the topic lightly and gently you've assumed a level of arrogance instead and made an enemy rather than an intellectual colleague who ordinarily welcomes friendly discourse. Welcome to ignore.

Oh please, so now we resort to thinly veiled insults and character assassination? It sounds to me as though you have problems that have nothing to do with the subject at hand, but which you are transposing onto this discussion.

To put it clearly, this is a topic that genuinely interests me and is directly related to the subject of this thread. If you're not interested in the academic discourse that surrounds it, that's up to you, but the purpose of the formalised study of history is to get as close to the 'truth' as is possible, not to obscure it with arcane ramblings.

The way I see things:

1) You made a statement

2) I challenged part of your statement

3) You contested my challenge

4) I tried to provide a context for the discussion

5) You decided to 'get personal'

That just seems odd to me. Still, since you are either unable or unwilling to provide any evidence to substantiate your earlier claim, I see no point in continuing this discourse. If you want to consider me an 'enemy' in the wake of this disagreement, that's up to you, but I bear you no especial ill will.
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

[Tadhg]

Robocoastie wrote:
I'm not going to spell it all out, you can take a medieval history college class as I have instead if you want all the details. then

Hmm, well some of us have degrees in history from Big Ten universities, so be careful about your comments, padawan.

For some reason, I see much hostility in your posts Rob - as evidence here and in the thread that's locked. A little friendliness and maybe a smilie or two will go a long way in getting folks to be more "accepting" of a young college student's opinion.

_________________
Count Rhuveinus - Lejendary Keeper of Castle Franqueforte

"Enjoy a 'world' where the fantastic is fact and magic really works!" ~ Gary Gygax

"By the pricking of my thumbs, Something wicked this way comes:" - Macbeth

[Tadhg]

Robocoastie wrote:
well it doesn't run counter to my University classes and texts at all. I assure you if you put on a suit of armor and come at me while I shoot you with a bow you will go down like a sack of potatoes.

There is very little difference between an arrow and a bullet so they are not "worlds away" as you claim. Again it was a progression I refer to and you're merely nit picking.

Trying to hit a moving target even with a gun is very difficult. Even if you're a marksman with beaucoup years of training, the odds are against you. And having trained with a bow and arrow, I don't see how you could stop a fully plated armored attacker with a bow. Mebbe a crossbow, but it all depends on the quality of the armor and the bow attack - and again trying to hit a moving target. [Somewhere there are stats on the difficulty of hitting a moving target]

_________________
Count Rhuveinus - Lejendary Keeper of Castle Franqueforte

"Enjoy a 'world' where the fantastic is fact and magic really works!" ~ Gary Gygax

"By the pricking of my thumbs, Something wicked this way comes:" - Macbeth

[Tadhg]

Robocoastie wrote:
we bow to your greatness and superior intellect Matthew and desire to continue nitpicking at parts which wasn't even the point relevant to the damn thread.

I bow to your greatness "ooo ahhh" good grief. Does your ego feel better now? I don't care if I'm wrong at all because what I meant and thought was obvious was the progression of projectile weapons.

OK, enough.

You don't need to bow to anything except reading the links and being willing to discuss and accept valid arguments and points.

Seriously, you're a college student professing to be an expert but taking umbrage when you are challenged.

Dude, time to lighten up and enjoy the discussions and not be so adversarial.
_________________
Count Rhuveinus - Lejendary Keeper of Castle Franqueforte

"Enjoy a 'world' where the fantastic is fact and magic really works!" ~ Gary Gygax

"By the pricking of my thumbs, Something wicked this way comes:" - Macbeth

[Treebore]

Eisenmann wrote:
Exactly right. It was the firearm that put an end to personal metal armor on the battlefield.



I have issues as well. Mine include the ratio with other weapons but I can gloss that over for simplicity sake. My "fix" would be to come up with a "critical" hit system based on the amount of damage done in a single "blow" and allow characters that use bows in-game actually get to use them effectively, ie at range that is out of reach of a closing fighter. All too often battles are set up too generically. Archers seem to be shooting from 15 feet and get ganked the next round.

Yeah, the other night I had a monster approaching form a 1,000 yards out. No one readied a bow or a crossbow. They were waiting for it to get close enough to melee it as a group. Then other things happened.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

[CharlieRock]

serleran wrote:
Maybe I misclassified it. It was a weapon that could fire on full auto, however. Somewhat resembled an AK-47.

I don't claim to be an expert on modern weaponry.

Was this it?

It is a SMG that does kind of look like a AK. (actually it is a replica, but a very good one)

Annnd a lot of chinese made AKs are called a SMG (for some reason). So it may well have been an sino-AK that was being used.
_________________
The Rock says ...

Know your roll!

[Eisenmann]

It's a paintball gun. Modeled after a Thompson SMG.

CharlieRock wrote:
Was this it?

It is a SMG that does kind of look like a AK. (actually it is a replica, but a very good one)

Annnd a lot of chinese made AKs are called a SMG (for some reason). So it may well have been an sino-AK that was being used.

[Eisenmann]

Rhuvein wrote:
I don't see how you could stop a fully plated armored attacker with a bow.

I see how a bowman can stop a fully plated attacker. Run around till the guy gets tired. Push him over and smack him with the bow!
But on a more serious note, he better have a great helm on and the visor down. A well trained archer can hit very small and yet moving targets.

At 40 yards I can hit the "paid" sticker from a milk jug and have taken gray squirrels with a bow so I know hitting small moving targets can be done.

And even though french knights were able to walk through missile fire at Agincourt with relatively light casualties, that was through indirect fire. A longbow fired at 1400s plate straight on is a different story. I'm pretty sure that I don't want to play the odds either way.

[CharlieRock]

Eisenmann wrote:
It's a paintball gun. Modeled after a Thompson SMG.

I know that. I was wondering if it looked like the gun Serleran seen bouncing lead off a maximillian full suit.
_________________
The Rock says ...

Know your roll!

[Eisenmann]

CharlieRock wrote:
I know that. I was wondering if it looked like the gun Serleran seen bouncing lead off a maximillian full suit.

Ah! lol

[serleran]

Quote:
Was this it?

Not quite. Similar in some ways, but not it.

And, I do know what a paint ball gun is, having hurt many people with them in the past... this thing that I saw was no gun like that. I, also, know what an AP round looks like.

[CharlieRock]

serleran wrote:
Not quite. Similar in some ways, but not it.

And, I do know what a paint ball gun is, having hurt many people with them in the past... this thing that I saw was no gun like that. I, also, know what an AP round looks like.

Well, I didn't mean was it a paintball gun. LoL I meant was it a gun that looked like the gun the paintball gun was a replica of.

And if you can tell what an AP round looks like bouncing off a plate of armor your way more expert then I thought I was going to be.

I'm just going to chalk this up to another job well done by Charlie the Gun Expert.
_________________
The Rock says ...

Know your roll!

[Scott]

I skimmed through the thread, but I might have missed someone making this point...

Arrows aren't like bullets. Hydrostatic shock just isn't really part of the equation when it comes to damage. Velocity helps for accuracy, range, and penetration, but assuming the arrow gets there with enough energy to penetrate sufficiently, or even over-penetrate, the excess velocity won't result in significantly more (or any) additional damage. The size of the wound channel is the thing when it comes to damage from arrows. That's why broadheads are used for hunting, they create a wider wound channel, have a greater chance of slicing vital organs/arteries, and result in greater bleeding. Bodkins, on the other hand, while perhaps quicker (unless coupled with a thicker shaft to help increase inertia/momentum--I forget which--at short range to punch through armour) don't have as wide a wound channel--even though they are more likely to (over)penetrate.

Anyway, what all that rambling amounts to, virtually any bow, at short enough range, is easily capable of sufficiently overpenetrating the body of an unarmoured human. Hence, given the same type of head, the damage should be roughly the same--regardless of how quickly it was moving when it passed through the target.

So...

How bows really need to be differentiated are with respect to...

Range: Faster, more powerful, flatter shooting bows have greater range (this is an oversimplification, but easier than some of the alternatives that spring to mind). (e.g., Longbow 70/140/210; Shortbow 50/100/150)

Penetration: Have certain bows/heads offset a certain number of armour points (like in the old Battlesystem for crossbows).

Damage: For simplicity, this should probably be determined by the type of head. (e.g., Broadhead d8; Sheaf d6, -2AP). You might go so far as to differentiate damage between short and long varieties, with the shorter varieties doing one step less damage.

That's about as complicated as I'd care to get--unless I was running a Robin Hood type campaign or something...

I don't know, just a few odd thoughts off the top of my head.

[Scott]

Just had a thought while I'm sitting here on hold with the satellite company...

Given that HPs are so abstract with respect to what they represent in any event, maybe the whole faster, flatter shooting, more powerful, heavier arrow thing can just be represented by the damage done (and range) as usual. For example, the target--if not killed outright--is using up more luck, endurance, and what not in avoiding a fatal strike from a faster shooting more powerful bow.

I'd probably break the damage down somewhat along the lines of the following then...

Shortbow: d4 (may be used from horseback)

Selfbow: d6

Horsebow: d8 (composite bow; may be used from horseback; may be made to benefit from exceptional strength)

Longbow: d10 (may be made to benefit from exceptional strength)

[Eisenmann]

I've got some thoughts on this as well but I'll be in trouble if I stay at the computer too much longer. Hopefully I'll have something to say tomorrow afternoon.

Merry Christmas, everyone!

Scott wrote:
Just had a thought while I'm sitting here on hold with the satellite company...

Given that HPs are so abstract with respect to what they represent in any event, maybe the whole faster, flatter shooting, more powerful, heavier arrow thing can just be represented by the damage done (and range) as usual. For example, the target--if not killed outright--is using up more luck, endurance, and what not in avoiding a fatal strike from a faster shooting more powerful bow.

I'd probably break the damage down somewhat along the lines of the following then...

Shortbow: d4 (may be used from horseback)

Selfbow: d6

Horsebow: d8 (composite bow; may be used from horseback; may be made to benefit from exceptional strength)

Longbow: d10 (may be made to benefit from exceptional strength)

[Matthew]

Heh, it's certainly true to say a good deal of what Hit points represent depends on the group. With regards to Bows with a heavier pull causing more damage, it's worth noting that getting stabbed with a Short Sword is as likely to kill you as being stabbed with a Long Sword, the extra damage is pure game abstraction. In general, bigger weapons and a higher strength yields more damage in D&D/C&C/D20 and that's just the way it is. Spears and Bows are slightly different in this respect, slightly disrupting the paradigm of big/heavy = more damage.

In both cases, I just go with 1D6; longer Spears let a character strike first in the initial moment of contact, heavier/bigger Bows let a character apply a higher Strength Bonus to Hit and Damage (which doesn't stack with the Dexterity Bonus to Hit).

I usually also give Armour 1 or 2 points of DR.
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

[Eisenmann]

Matthew wrote:
Heh, it's certainly true to say a good deal of what Hit points represent depends on the group. With regards to Bows with a heavier pull causing more damage, it's worth noting that getting stabbed with a Short Sword is as likely to kill you as being stabbed with a Long Sword, the extra damage is pure game abstraction. In general, bigger weapons and a higher strength yields more damage in D&D/C&C/D20 and that's just the way it is. Spears and Bows are slightly different in this respect, slightly disrupting the paradigm of big/heavy = more damage.

In both cases, I just go with 1D6; longer Spears let a character strike first in the initial moment of contact, heavier/bigger Bows let a character apply a higher Strength Bonus to Hit and Damage (which doesn't stack with the Dexterity Bonus to Hit).

I usually also give Armour 1 or 2 points of DR.

Or stabbed with the turkey carving knife.
Just thinking out loud here for a bit...

A long/hunting bow's theoretical higher damage rate has more to do with the extra kinetic energy coupled with an arrow head designed for the job of penetrating the stuff designed to protect our innards - the ribcage.

The evolution of the modern hunting bow is all about pushing a lighter (carbon) arrow at higher speeds on a flatter trajectory. My take is that historically the trend was toward the same means. It just took a lot longer to work out vs the timeframe of compound bows.

Upstream I mentioned that I'd make bows deadlier by determining bowshot crits based on how much damage is done with the weapon. I was wrong in that approach. I've since changed my mind and think that it all should be done with the to-hit roll. IMO that approach fits better with the rest of the system.

When hunting I'm all about the shot placement in order to maximize the chance of making a critical hit on my target. It's something that I understand in real life so I'd like to bring that to my gaming.

If an attacker beats a target's AC by 5, a bump in damage is assessed. Beat the AC by 10 and a critical hit is assessed (maximum weapon damage + draw from critical hit deck if you have it)

I like the idea of DR vs missile fire but I'm not sure about the concept of DR in C&C. What if certain bow/arrow combo reduce a target's AC by a point or two? (almost never more than that) That way it's all done on the attack roll and doesn't reduce effectiveness of the bow once a successful strike has been made. As you said, death is just as likely when stabbed with a short sword as with a long sword. It sucks just as much to be pierced by an arrow that has been slowed down a bit by armor as one that did it wholly unhindered.

[Matthew]

Eisenmann wrote:
Or stabbed with the turkey carving knife.

Indeed.
The way I see it, there are two ways to overcome body armour; it can either be bypassed or penetrated (though actual penetration is not required for the impact of a blow to cause injury). Castles & Crusades does not distinguish between these, instead abstracting dodge, parry, block, coverage and protection into Armour Class and Hit Points.

For me, a successful hit is one that has the potential to cause measurable injury. In addition to potentially overcoming the ability of the target to dodge, parry and block, it has potentially bypassed or penetrated the armour of the target. I say 'potentially' because Hit Points may turn a potentially solid blow into a glancing one, insofar as they represent divine favour, luck or skill.

I feel that armour should not only have the chance to prevent a solid hit that would otherwise bypass or penetrate armour, but also reduce the significance of the hit; essentially, my intention is to uphold the abstraction of combat.

In the case of the Bow, there seems only one thing to worry about to me and that is its efficiency with regard to Strength. I assume that an average Short Bow is built to use average Strength (9-12), since a lower Strength results in penalties to damage (and to hit in my games) and a higher strength results in no benefits, meaning it is incapable of transferring the benefits of additional strength to the arrow. I treat Long Bows as though they are built for Strength 13-15 and Great Bows as though they are built for Strength 16-17. Any of these can be built with a higher or lower pull than the default.

Bows with a higher efficiency or better arrows I treat like Swords with a better balance or a sharper edge; they get +1 to Hit or Damage or both.

I hope I am making some sense, it's late here!
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)